The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR regarding sections 323, 324, 326, and 148/149 IPC. Quashing was permitted due to a compromise between the accused and the injured complainant, relying on inherent powers.
FIR No. 26 dated 15.05.2012 and all consequential proceedings 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.
1
Crl. Misc. No. M-11248 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-11248 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 26, 2013
Gurleen Singh and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Crl. Misc. No. 22194 of 2013 :
Application is allowed and Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case :
Accused Gurleen Singh and three others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short –
Crl. Misc. No. M-11248 of 2013 (O&M) 2
Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.26 dated 15.05.2012 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Jhander, District Amritsar, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent no. 2 – injured complainant.
Reply 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 states that parties
have effected compromise (Annexure P-2), and therefore, respondent no. 2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. Affidavit of respondent no. 2 to this effect has also been placed on record today in the Court.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jagbir Singh, stated that grievous hurt with sharp weapon falling under Section 326 IPC is on right hand and left arm i.e. non-vital parts.
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, parties have amicably settled their dispute
Crl. Misc. No. M-11248 of 2013 (O&M) 3
with intervention of relatives and respectables. They want to bury the hatchet and live in peace and harmony. It is, therefore, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed.
Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR
Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
April 26, 2013 monika
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Fir can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC despite offences under Sections 326 and 149 IPC not being compoundable due to a compromise between parties.
Whether the inherent powers of the High Court allow quashing of proceedings where parties have amicably settled the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶27
2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurleen Singh and others
State of Punjab
Anxious (injured complainant)
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
