Allowed

Bhola Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2009CRM-M/20462/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 326, 324, and Section 34 IPC. The court relied on a Full Bench judgment to hold that non-compoundable offences can be compounded if the dispute is resolved, quashing all subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 66 dated 1.6.2001 registered under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.

Bhola Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CRM-M 20462 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M 20462 of 2008 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 16.11.2009

¶6

Bhola Singh and another

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Present : Mr.Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the respondent/State.

¶14

Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2.

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶16

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, `Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.66 dated 1.6.2001 registered under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station Giddarbaha and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶17

The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of Nachhatar Singh (respondent No.2) in which he has alleged that on 29.5.2001 at about 8 P.M. he was attacked by Guga Singh (petitioner No.2) with a gandasa which caused him injury on the palm of his left hand.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter has now been compromised between the parties. In this regard, affidavit dated 19.8.2008 sworn in by respondent No.2 is attached as Annexure P-2.

¶19

Notice of motion was issued. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their separate replies. Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 are present

¶20

CRM-M 20462 of 2008

¶21

-2-

¶22

in Court, who have been identified by Sh.Naresh Jain and Sh.Aman Dhir, Advocates. I have asked both petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 about the compromise to which they have stated that the matter has been resolved between them.

¶23

Counsel for the State, has however, submitted that Sections 324 and 326 IPC are non compoundable in view of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Faced with this argument, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 to contend that non compoundable offence can be compounded if the parties have resolved the dispute outside the Court.

¶24

After hearing the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which there is only one injury which has been caused to respondent No.2 and the blow, which has not been repeated by petitioner No.2 and the matter has been resolved between the parties, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.66 dated 1.6.2001 registered under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station Giddarbaha and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶25

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶26

16.11.2009 Meenu

Bhola Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Parkash Chandana Vs State of Punjab

Savitri & Others Vs State of Haryana

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gaurav Deshwal Vs State of Haryana

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Atma Singh Vs State of Punjab