Allowed

Hardev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Nov 2012CRM-M/28622/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of an FIR due to a compromise between private parties. The court, noting the admission of compromise and lack of objection from the State and complainant, held the pendency would be an abuse of process. Accordingly, the FIR and proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 66 dated 21.06.2010 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Hardev Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M- 28622 of 2012 (O&M).

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M- 28622 of 2012 (O&M). Date of Decision:- 07.11.2012

¶5

Hardev Singh and Ors.

¶6

Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

Respondents.

¶10

CORAM :HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.

¶11

Present: - Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. S.S.Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 66 dated 21.06.2010, under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

¶16

Vide order dated 14.09.2012, this court had directed the affected parties to appear on 26.09.2012

¶17

¶18

Crl.Misc.No.M- 28622 of 2012 (O&M).

¶19

before the learned trial court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said court was also directed to send the detailed report in that regard on or before the date fixed by this court.

¶20

In compliance of the above order, the petitioners, namely, Hardev Singh son of Bhula Singh and Narinder Singh son of Hardev Singh, as well as respondent No.2complainant, Gurjinder Singh son of Bhupinder Singh, did appear before the court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise.

¶21

Gurjinder Singh, injured-complainant No.2 stated that on his statement, the impugned FIR was registered. Due to intervention of respectable, he had effected the compromise with the petitioners vide compromise deed dated 08.06.2012. He further deposed that he has no grudge with the petitioners' side. He further deposed that he had no objection if the impugned FIR was quashed. Similar statements were suffered by the petitioners.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from Head Constable Paramjit Singh, Police Station, Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed.

¶23

Crl.Misc.No.M- 28622 of 2012 (O&M). 3

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 complainant-injured also admits the factum of compromise. He admits that respondent No.2-complainant did appear before the court below and got recorded his statement with regard to the compromise. He also states that respondent No.2-complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, on the basis of compromise.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to intervention of the respectable, the private parties have sorted out the dispute and effected a compromise. Heard.

¶26

The petitioners have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC. During the pendeny of the case, the better sense has prevailed and the private parties sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise in both the cases. The statement of the aggrieved persons and those of the petitioners have already been sent by the said court to this court. Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 have admitted the factum of compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential

¶27

Crl.Misc.No.M- 28622 of 2012 (O&M).

¶28

¶29

proceedings are quashed.

¶30

As a consequence of the compromise the ultimate chances of conviction and sentence are bleak, therefore, the pendency of the FIR and the consequential proceedings will be sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶31

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the case, the factum of compromise and the ratio of the judgment passed by a five-Judges Bench of this court in Kulwinder Singh & others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1052, the present petition is allowed and resultantly, FIR No. 66 dated 21.06.2010, under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶32

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶33

07.11.2012 Anoop

Hardev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Bijender Singh Ando Rs. Vs State of Haryana

Surinder Kumari Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeeps Ingh Vs Kaushalya Devi @ Pinki and Ors.

Prince Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Madan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.