Single judge quashed FIR No.26 dated 27.2.2008 and consequential proceedings after examining a lump sum compromise dated 10.1.2012 recorded via status report. Court held no useful purpose would be served in prolonging litigation as dispute was settled.
Quashed FIR No.26 dated 27.2.2008 and all proceedings consequential thereto.
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.
CRM No.M-4575 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-4575 of 2012 Date of decision:23.05.2012
Gurpreet Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.S.S.Tiwana, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Gagan Mohni, AAG, Punjab.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No.26 dated 27.2.2008 registered under Sections 352, 332 and 186 of IPC at Police Station, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib and the proceedings consequential thereto are being sought on the basis of compromise dated 10.1.2012 (Annexure P-2).
The FIR was registered on the allegation that Constable Harvinder Singh was posted at Madhopur and when he was going to GT Road Sirhind, he received a message that an accident taken place towards union side after crossing the overbridge. He got injured admitted in the hospital. The complainant was not in police uniform. Two persons tried to snatch his mobile and gave fist blows to him. In this background, the impugned FIR was registered.
During the pendency of the trial, compromise has been effected between the parties, which is evident from Annexure P-2.
2
CRM No.M-4575 of 2012
In compliance of the order dated 16.2.2012, status report has been received. As per status report, the statements of complainant Harvinder Singh and accused Gurmit Singh, Jasanpreet Singh through his attorney Rajdeep Singh, Narinder Singh and Harpteet Singh have been recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter. As per the statement of complainant, he has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
Counsel for the State does not controvert the said facts.
After going through the status report, 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.
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C.C. 582 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 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, FIR No.26 dated 27.2.2008 registered under Sections 352, 332 and 186 of IPC at Police Station, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib and the proceedings consequential thereto are quashed qua the petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
23.05.2012 mks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under FIR No.26 registered under Sections 352, 332 and 186 of IPC should be quashed in view of a compromise.
Whether a settlement between parties serves any useful purpose in prolonging litigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabReferred¶22
2008 (4) S.C.C. 582 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶22
2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
Gurpreet Singh and others
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
