Criminal petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC against respondent No.2 due to injuries sustained during a fight where a compromise was reached, noting prior quashing against co-accused.
FIR No.52 dated 17.10.1995 and subsequent proceedings qua respondent No.2 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.13948-M of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 8, 2008
MANGAL SINGH
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. HS Gill, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. RK Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed by complainant-Mangal Singh under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of FIR No.52 dated 17.10.1995 under Sections 326, 324, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Goraya, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner as also one Chatinderjit Singh had received injuries. The injuries received by Chatinderjit Singh were simple in nature. Only the petitioner-complainant had grievous injury on his finger. The accused, including respondent No.2-Palwinder Singh alias Bhalwinder Singh,
Criminal Misc.13948-M of 2008
2
remained in judicial custody for a few days. With the intervention of respectables and relatives, the misunderstanding between the parties has been resolved. There is, now, no ill-will, therefore, the proceedings against respondent No.2 be quashed.
It has also been pointed out that against co-accused Amandeep Singh and Paramjit Singh, the proceedings were earlier got quashed at the instance of the petitioner by way of CRM 2400-M of 2008, which was allowed vide order dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P-3).
Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that in view of the compromise having been effected between the parties, he has no objection if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed.
Having regard to the facts given hereinabove and taking notice of the fact that the complainant has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings against respondent No.2 in view of the compromise, the petition is allowed. FIR (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings qua respondent No.2 are quashed.
August 8, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings under sections 326, 324, 148, and 149 of the IPC against respondent No.2 should be quashed in light of the compromise between parties.
Whether Section 482 CrPC confers jurisdiction to quash the said proceedings upon satisfaction of the facts recorded by this Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MANGAL SINGH
STATE OF PUNJAB
PALWINDER SINGH ALIAS BHALWINDER SINGH
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
