The High Court quashed an FIR and cognizant proceedings based on Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to a compromise between parties, relying on Dimpey Gujraj.
FIR No. 64 and its cross version registered as DDR No. 23 were quashed, along with further proceedings.
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.M.No. M-10285 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Bachittar Singh and others
................Petitioners
vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents 2) Crl.M.No. M-10107 of 2013 (O&M) ...
Lachhman Singh and others
................Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: None for the petitioners
Sh. S.S. Chandumajra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
K.C. Puri, J.
Vide this order, I intend to dispose of Crl.M.No.M-10285 of 2013 titled as Bachittar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another and Crl.M.No.M-10107 of 2013 titled as Lachhman Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, as both these petitions have
Crl.M.No. M-10285 of 2013 -2-
been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 64 dated 12.5.2008 under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Tapa, District Barnala and its cross case vide DDR No. 23 dated 12.5.2008 registered at Police Station Tapa, on the basis of compromise.
The report of the trial Court was called for. The report has been received in which it is mentioned that parties have arrived at a compromise.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurdev Singh, has also stated at the Bar that cancellation report has been prepared but the same is to be presented before the Court.
The matter involved is personal in nature.
So, in view of compromise and in view of authority reported
as Dimpey Gujraj vs. U.T. through Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh and others 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 745, the abovesaid FIR and its cross version stand quashed. Further proceedings, in pursuant to that FIR and cross version also stand quashed.
( K.C. Puri ) 27.5.2013 Judge chugh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR and cognizant proceedings should be quashed due to a valid compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dimpey Gujraj vs. U.T. through AdministratorApplied¶23
Dimpey Gujraj vs. U.T. through Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh and others 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 745
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bachittar Singh
Lachhman Singh
State of Punjab
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
