The court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR regarding offences under IPC Sections 452, 323, 506, and 148 read with 149. The FIR was quashed based on a compromise effected by the parties.
Impugned FIR No. 25 dated 08.02.2013 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10084 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-10084 of 2013
Date of Decision : May 28, 2013
Amarjot Singh and others
.... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Harmanjit Singh Jugait, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Roopam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Accused Amarjot Singh and two others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.25 dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala, in view of compromise effected with respondent no. 2 – complainant, who has furnished affidavit (Annexure P-2) regarding the compromise.
2
Crl. Misc. No. M-10084 of 2013
Affidavit of respondent no.2 – complainant, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant, on instructions from respondent no.2, said to be present in person in the Court, stated that parties have effected compromise, for which respondent no. 2 has furnished affidavit (Annexure P-2), and therefore, respondent no. 2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. Affidavit of respondent no. 2 to the same effect has also been placed on record in the Court today.
In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007
(3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225 .
In the instant case, respondent no.2 suffered only simple injuries in the occurrence. Parties have arrived at settlement with intervention of respectables. It is, accordingly, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed so that the parties may live in peace and harmony.
Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
May 28, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on basis of compromise in a case involving non-compoundable offences.
Whether the instant case is fit for quashing of FIR due to settlement and compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶23
2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amarjot Singh and others
State of Punjab
Anterior complained party
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
