Allowed

Gurpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2012CRM-M/8758/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. accepted petitions and quashed an FIR and a cross version recorded during subsequent inquiry. The court held that a valid compromise between parties brought about peace, despite involving serious charges and licensed weapons, and served the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 20 dated 5.3.2008 and cross version recorded by DDR No. 8 dated 6.3.2008 along with all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 11^th , 2012

¶5

Gurjant Singh and others

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

2 Criminal Misc. No.M-8758 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 11^th , 2012

¶11

Gurpal Singh and others

¶12

.... Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Punjab and others

¶15

.... Respondents

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶17

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

¶18

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶19

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

¶20

Present Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012 and for respondents no. 2 to 4 in Crl.Misc.No. 8758 of 2012)

¶21

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners (in Crl.Misc.No. 8758 of 2012 ) and for respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012)

¶22

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab, for the State.

¶23

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶24

The above mentioned two petitions have been brought under the

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012 2

¶26

provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.20 dated 5.3.2008 at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda for an offence punishable under sections 307 read with section 34 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as the cross version recorded by way of DDR No. 8 dated 6.3.2008 for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 456, 436, 324, 427 read with section 149 IPC, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

¶27

FIR No. 20 dated 5.3.2008 was got registered by Joginder Singh, petitioner and others, namely, Chhotu Singh and Manjit Singh. Kewal Singh, petitioner No.4, in Criminal Misc. No. M-8617 of 2012 is arrayed as an accused subsequently because his licensed gun had been used in the alleged incident. Joginder Singh is not only the complainant but also the injured in this case.

¶28

The cross case, lodged by Sewa Singh alias Satnam Singh against the petitioners, Gurpal Singh and eight others, alongwith one Nachhatar Singh, who has died on 19.9.1997, for causing injuries to Sewa Singh alias Satnam Singh, Chhotu Singh and Manjit Singh on 6.3.2008, is also claimed to have been compromised between the parties.

¶29

In Criminal Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012, Joginder Singh, respondent No.2 has appeared in person and is represented by Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate. His affidavit, laying down the terms of the compromise, is Annexure P4. On the other hand, Sewa Singh, Chhotu Singh and Manjit Singh are also appearing in person with their counsel, Mr. A.P.S.Deol, learned Senior Advocate. Their affidavits supporting the factum of compromise are on the record as Annexures P4, P5 and P6. A

¶30

Crl. Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012 3

¶31

composite document under the name of 'compromise' also appears on the files as Annexure P2. The complainant and injured appearing before me admit the factum of compromise. They are identified as complainant and injured of these cases by Head Constable Surjit Singh. On questioning them, the court is of the opinion that the compromise has been arrived at to bring about peace and harmony between the parties and there is no undue pressure or influence in the matter of the compromise.

¶32

Now, the question arises as to whether the FIR and the cross version registered by way of DDR No. 8 dated 6.3.2008 could be quashed.

¶33

The gun used in both the cases is licensed gun. In the case against Gurjant Singh and others, the gun of Kewal Singh is said to have been used by Gurjant Singh. Noticing the fact that the pallets had only hit below the knee joint and that the injury was found simple, the offence has been converted from section 307 IPC to section 338 IPC.

¶34

It has been appropriately said in many cases that in a modern society, compromise is sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. The object of any justice system is not only to punish the culprit but is also to restore harmony in the society. When the parties enter into a compromise, they forget the bitterness caused by the incident and pledge to start living afresh in a congenial atmosphere. This object of law has to be kept in mind while allowing quashing of an FIR.

¶35

Though the offence punishable under section 307 IPC is serious, yet Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs.

¶36

Crl. Misc. No.M-8617 of 2012

¶37

¶38

Radhika and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9 has quashed an FIR registered for an offence punishable under section 394 IPC which was equally serious. So, the seriousness of the case cannot be taken as a ground to thwart the process of normalization of relations between the parties.

¶39

The weapon used in this case is not an unlicensed weapon. The guns used are licensed weapons of the parties. No serious injury has been caused even by the guns allegedly used in the occurrence. In these circumstances, the compromise between the parties appears to serve the ends of justice. Therefore, I accept the petitions and quash FIR No.20 dated 5.3.2008 registered at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda for an offence punishable under sections 307 read with section 34 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as the cross version recorded by way of DDR No. 8 dated 6.3.2008 for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 456, 436, 324, 427 read with section 149 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

¶40

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶41

May 11^th , 2012 som

Gurpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpal Singh and Ors. 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

Bagu Khan Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Om Parkash & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Mehar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Munshi Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.