Allowed

Karnail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2012CRM-M/29034/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed common criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR and a cross-case involving Sections 324, 323, and 34 IPC. Relying on established precedents regarding settlements in compoundable offences, the court quashed the proceedings to serve the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 68 dated 15.06.2012 and Cross-case registered vide Rapat No. 29 dated 15.06.2012, along with all related criminal proceedings, were quashed.

Karnail Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M-29034 of 2012 & CRM M-32522 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: December 01, 2012

¶5

(1) CRM M-29034 of 2012 (O&M)

¶6

Karnail Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. ... Respondents (2) CRM M-32522 of 2012 (O&M) Surjit Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. ... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶8

Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

¶10

1. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶11

Present: Ms. Sunita Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners (In CRM M-29034 of 2012) and for respondent Nos.2 to 4 (In CRM M-32522 of 2012)

¶12

Mr. H.S. Saggu,Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners (In CRM M-32522 of 2012) and for respondent Nos.2 and 3 (In CRM M-29034 of 2012)

¶13

Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)

¶15

By this common order, Crl. Misc. Petitions viz. CRM M-

¶16

CRM M-29034 of 2012 & CRM M-32522 of 2012

¶17

¶18

29034 of 2012 and CRM M-32522 of 2012 are being decided together as the same arise out of FIR No. 68 dated 15.06.2012 and cross-case registered vide Rapat No. 29 dated 15.06.2012.

¶19

CRM M-29034 of 2012 has been filed by Karnail Singh and others under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 15.06.2012, under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Muktsar, on the basis of compromise dated 11.08.2012 (Annexure P/3).

¶20

CRM M-32522 of 2012 has been filed by Surjit Singh and Gurdeep Siungh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Cross-case registered vide Rapat No. 29 dated 15.06.2012, under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC as a cross case against FIR No. 68 dated 15.06.2012 along with Rapat No. 12 dated 19.06.2012, Police Station Gidderbaha, District Muktsar on the basis of compromise dated 11.08.2012 (Annexure P/3).

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants have relied upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Bhupinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 443 to contend that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted for the offence for the reason that these are cross cases, the parties have compromised the matter and they are not likely to support the prosecution and from other facts and circumstances available on the record, the prosecution case is not likely to succeed, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to decline the prayer for quashing of the FIR and the

¶22

CRM M-29034 of 2012 & CRM M-32522 of 2012 3

¶23

cross case on the ground that it would amount to be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offence.

¶24

Five separate affidavits dated 01.12.2012 of Surjit Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Karnail Singh, Guranditta and Baljinder Singh – complainants in the two cases, affirming the factum of compromise have been filed in Court today, which are taken on record.

¶25

Consequently, in view of compromise between the parties and the statements of the parties that they want to live in peace and harmony and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 , which has been affirmed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, and judgment of this Court in Bhupinder Kaur's case (supra) no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases where this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdictional powers to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in Gian Singh's case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and

¶26

CRM M-29034 of 2012 & CRM M-32522 of 2012 4

¶27

wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end.

¶28

For the reasons stated above, both petitions are allowed. FIR No. 68 dated 15.06.2012, under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPc added later on), registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Muktsar, and Cross case registered vide Rapat No. 29 dated 15.06.2012, under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC as a cross case against FIR No. 68 dated 15.06.2012 along with Rapat No. 12 dated 19.06.2012, Police Station Gidderbaha, District Muktsar, are hereby quashed and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR/DDR also stand quashed.

¶29

December 01, 2012 [ Paramjeet Singh ] vkd Judge

Karnail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab

Suresh Pal Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Another

Madan Lal @ Madhi & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Vivek Padam Singh Vs State of Haryana

Surjit Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana