Allowed

Gobind Masih & Ors. v. State of Punjab & or.S

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2012CRM-M/12764/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR relating to affray and unlawful assembly after alleging a compromise. The Court allowed the petition following a Full Bench precedent, dismissing the prosecution's opposition regarding the final stage of evidence.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 52 dated April 18, 2004 and all criminal proceedings therefrom are quashed subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000 with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority and Rs. 10,000 with the Punjab Police

Gobind Masih & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & or.S — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M-12764 of 2012 (O&M) [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CRM M-12764 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: December 11, 2012

¶5

Gobind Masih and others

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶11

-.-

¶12

Present:Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶14

-.-

¶15

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Petitioners seek the quashing of FIR No. 52 dated April 18, 2004 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sri Hargobindpur registered at the instance of Karnail Singh- respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioners had constituted an unlawful assembly and assaulted him as well as Uttam Singh, respondent No.3. It is averred in the petition that the matter has been compromised vide annexure P-2 with the intervention of the respectables of the village.

¶17

CRM M-12764 of 2012 (O&M) [2]

¶18

The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court. The trial Court after recording the statements of the parties has sent a report that the matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily.

¶19

State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that the entire evidence has been completed by the prosecution and the case is at final stage.

¶20

One of the accused- petitioner No.1 Gobind Masih is reported to have died.

¶21

I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The injured respondent no.2 has appeared before the trial Court and made a statement that the matter has been compromised.

¶22

Following the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

¶23

Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others , 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, I do not find any reason to decline the prayer for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise after the dispute having been resolved.

¶24

Petition is allowed. FIR No. 52 dated April 18, 2004 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sri Hargobindpur and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed subject to petitioners depositing a total sum of Rs.10000/with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Sector 22, Chandigarh and a total sum of Rs.10000/- with the Punjab Police Welfare Fund, Sector 9, Chandigarh within a period of one month.

¶25

December 11 , 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI)

¶26

CRM M-12764 of 2012 (O&M) [3]

¶27

sanjay

¶28

JUDGE

Gobind Masih & Ors. v. State of Punjab & or.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobind Masih & Ors. v. State of Punjab & or.S

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Umar Mohammad Vs Memuna and Anr.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kishan Pal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hitesh Malhotra & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kamlesh Dhawan and Anr. Vs State of Punjab Ana Anr.