Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging criminal breach of peace under Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing a compromise. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the settlement and a Full Bench decision.
FIR No.127 dated 31-5-2007 and subsequent proceedings 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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-10430 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-10430 of 2009 Date of decision: May 20, 2009
Surinder Kumar & another
-Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another -Respondents
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.127 dated 31-5-2007 under Sections 323,324, 326/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Banga (Annexure P-6 ) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire dispute has been resolved between the parties. Counsel has referred to order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahr to contend that the cross case has already been allowed to be compounded by the said Court.
Reply by way of affidavit of Amandeep Singh,complainant/ respondent No.2 has been filed. The same is taken on record. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is duly identified by his counsel. Another
Criminal Misc. No. M-10430 of 2009 2
affidavit of Kuldeep Singh injured has been filed, which is taken on record as mark 'A'. He is also present in Court and is duly identified by counsel for respondent No.2. Amandeep Singh, complainant and Kuldeep Singh, injured have stated that they have no objection if the instant FIR is quashed.
Learned State counsel submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the State would not stand in the way of quashing the FIR.
The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose shall be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings, which would be a futile exercise.
In view of the above, the present FIR deserves to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh
and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.
Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
[Rajan Gupta] Judge
May 20, 2009. 'ask'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 IPC should be quashed in view of compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶2021
_Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052_
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surinder Kumar & another
State of Punjab & another
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
