This judgment holds that an FIR involving grievous hurt with a sharp weapon on a vital part cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise, as it is not in the interest of justice to do so.
The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed in limine.
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.
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. -M-10236 of 2013 Date of Decision:21.05.2013
Tarlochan Singh & others
………Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another
………… Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL
Present:None for the petitioners.
L.N. Mittal, J.(ORAL)
Accused Tarlochan Singh and three others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 93 dated 5.9.2008 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) allegedly effected with respondents No. 2 to 4-complainant party.
When the case was taken up earlier, Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners was heard. He stated that grievous hurt with sharp weapon falling under Section 326 IPC was also on the forehead i.e. vital part. This is also evident from medical evidence of Himmat Singh.
It was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR involving such serious offence including grievous hurt with sharp weapon on vital part should not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.
Crl. Misc. -M-10236 of 2013
2
Counsel for the petitioners prayed for passing over the case to cite case law that FIR should be quashed on the basis of compromise. Thereafter, the case has been taken up three times, but counsel for the petitioners has not appeared. This conduct of the counsel is disapproved.
Court has inherent power to quash FIR on the basis of compromise but Court is not bound to quash every FIR merely on the basis of compromise. The Court has to see whether it is appropriate in the interest of justice to quash the FIR.
In the instant case, keeping in view the nature of injuries including many grievous injuries and also grievous injury with sharp weapon on vital part, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case wherein the FIR should be quashed, merely on the basis of compromise. Quashing of FIR would not be in the interest of justice.
Dismissed in limini .
21.05.2013 (L.N. Mittal) 'sp' JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR involving grievous hurt with a sharp weapon on a vital part can be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise.
Whether the consent of the parties requires quashing of an FIR involving serious offences where public interest is implicated.
Whether quashing an FIR without appearing to cite case law is appropriate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tarlochan Singh & others
State of Punjab
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
