2017 (10) TMI 1561 - HC - Indian Laws

Proclaimed Offender - co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted by the trial Court and the matter was compromised - HELD THAT - In view of the law laid down in NARINDER SINGH ORS. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ANR 2015 (2) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT , no useful purpose will be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of FIR and order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender based on compromise.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR and an order declaring them as a proclaimed offender, both based on a compromise reached between the parties. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the co-accused had already been acquitted by the trial court, subjecting the petitioner to a fresh trial would serve no purpose. The counsel relied on various judgments to support this contention. The court, in response, directed the parties to appear before the trial court for recording their statements regarding the genuineness of the compromise. The report from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate confirmed that the parties had voluntarily entered into the compromise without any coercion.

The court noted that the co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court earlier, and a compromise had been reached between the complainant and the petitioner. Citing legal precedents such as "Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab," "Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika," and "Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of Punjab," the court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, and all consequential proceedings specifically in relation to the petitioner only.

In conclusion, based on the evidence of a genuine compromise and considering the acquittal of the co-accused along with legal precedents, the court found it appropriate to quash the FIR and related proceedings against the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of voluntary compromises and the futility of continuing criminal proceedings when a compromise has been reached between the parties involved.