Three petitions filed for quashing of two FIRs (No. 162 and DDR No. 8) involving offences under IPC and Arms Act based on compromise having been recorded by the lower court.
FIR No. 162 and DDR No. 8 dated September 3 and 4, 2009 and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom are 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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-3079 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: May 13, 2010 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-3079 of 2010
Gurpreet Singh and others
…..Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
…..Respondents
Mandeep Singh and others
…..Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
…..Respondents
Harkamal Singh and others
…..Petitioners
Vs.
Crl. Misc. No.M-3079 of 2010 [2]
State of Punjab and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr. K.D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
This order will dispose of three petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M-3079, M-3111 and M-9098 of 2010, for quashing of FIR No. 162 dated September 3, 2009 under Sections 307, 336, 148, 149 IPC read with Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and DDR No.8 dated September 4, 2009 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC read with Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise.
The parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate. The said Court has recorded the statements of all the accused and the complainant in the FIR as well as in the cross-version and reported that matter has actually been compromised. A copy of the compromise deed has been admitted by both the parties.
In view of the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the matter has actually been compromised and FIR can be quashed in view of
Crl. Misc. No.M-3079 of 2010
[3]
Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab , 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.
Petitions are allowed. FIR No. 162 dated September 3, 2009 under Sections 307, 336, 148, 149 IPC read with Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and DDR No.8 dated September 4, 2009 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC read with Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and all the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
May 13, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 162 and DDR No. 8 dated September 3 and 4, 2009 can be quashed on the basis of compromise under the given circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶34
Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurpreet Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Mandeep Singh and others
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
