Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR based on a compromise. The court relied on a Full Bench decision to quash the FIR and proceedings, noting the futile nature of continuing trial after voluntary compromise.
FIR and subsequent proceedings ordered to be 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.
1
Crl. Misc. No. M-36206 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-36206 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 10, 2010
Simranjeet Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
GURDEV SINGH, J.
The petitioners, against whom FIR No. 179 dated 25.7.2008 was registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana, under Sections 307, 324, 451, 148, 149 and 427 IPC, have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the same on the basis of the compromise, which, according to them, has been entered into between them and Amrinder Singh, respondent/complainant.
On notice having been issued, respondent No.2 put in appearance through his counsel. The factum of the compromise was admitted in the reply filed by them in the form of affidavit. Report of the trial court was called for, if such a compromise had been entered into between the parties and if so, what were the terms thereof. It was directed to make its report after recording the statements of the parties. The trial
2
Crl. Misc. No. M-36206 of 2009
court, after recording the statements of the parties, has submitted its report to the effect that the parties have voluntarily entered into the compromise and thereafter they have started living amicably in the village.
It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052, that the parties can enter into compromise even in respect of the offences which are not compoundable and the FIR can be quashed on the basis thereof. After the parties have entered into the compromise, there is no question of the complainant/injured supporting the prosecution case in the court. The continuance of the proceedings before the trial court would be a futile exercise and will only result in wastage of the court time. Therefore, in view of the compromise, so entered between the parties, the
FIR and the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
May 10, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise even in respect of offences which are not compoundable.
Whether continuance of proceedings after compromise would result in wastage of court time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶19
2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Simranjeet Singh and others
State of Punjab
Amrinder Singh
GURDEV SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
