Quashed

Jameshpal and Another v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2012CRM-M/2155/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed an FIR and consequential proceedings after a compromise was reached between parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that no useful purpose is served in prolonging litigation once a dispute is amicably settled and the complainant withdraws opposition.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.294 dated 1.7.2010 and consequential proceedings quashed qua petitioners.

Jameshpal and Another Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-2155 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-2155 of 2012 Date of decision:25.4.2012

¶5

Jameshpal @ Jassa and another

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. P.S.Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.Kamal Narula, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶15

Quashing of FIR No.294 dated 1.7.2010 registered under Sections 341/323/326/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Division No5, Civil Line, District Ludhiana and the proceedings consequential thereto are being sought on the basis of compromise dated 12.1.2012 (Annexure P-2).

¶16

The impugned FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No.2 on the allegation that on 26.6.2010, petitioners were giving abuses to him and when he tried to stop them, they caused injuries to him in drunkard condition.

¶17

At the state of investigation, the parties have entered into a compromise, which is evident from Annexure P-2.

¶18

On notice, counsel for respondent No.2 has put in

¶19

¶20

CRM No.M-2155 of 2012

¶21

appearance and tendered the affidavit of respondent No.2, who is present in Court and has duly been identified by HC Chamkaur Singh. As per the affidavit, the complainant stated that with the intervention of respectables and family friends, the matter between them has been settled amicably and he does not want to pursue the impugned FIR against the petitioners.

¶22

Counsel for the State does not dispute the said facts.

¶23

In view of the affidavit of respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation as the dispute between the parties has been settled.

¶24

Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.294 dated 1.7.2010 registered under Sections 341/323/326/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Division No5, Civil Line, District Ludhiana and the proceedings consequential thereto are quashed qua the petitioners.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶27

25.4.2012

¶28

mks

Jameshpal and Another v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameshpal and Another v. State of Punjab and 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

Harpreet Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rupinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Hardeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurpreet Singh @ Raju Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Swaran Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.