Quashed

Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2014CRM-M/10348/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed F.I.R. No. 190 concerning injuries sustained in a school-related incident. The court accepted a compromise deed executed during the trial and deemed no useful purpose served by continuing litigation, disposing of the petition in favor of the petitioners. It relied on Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents regarding quashability upon compromise.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. No. 190 dated 08.10.2013 under Sections 341/324/34/326 IPC, registered at P.S. North, Sector-3, Chandigarh, is quashed.

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-10348 of 2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-10348 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.09.2014

¶5

Manjit Singh and others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

U.T. Chandigarh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. K.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Gagandeep S. Wasu, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh

¶13

Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶14

¶15

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶16

Quashing of F.I.R No. 190 dated 08.10.2013 under Sections

¶17

341/324/34/326 IPC, registered at P.S. North, Sector-3, Chandigarh, is sought on the basis of compromise dated 14.02.2014 (Annexure P-2).

¶18

F.I.R has been registered on the statement of respondent

¶19

No.2 against the petitioners. The allegations are that there is verbal

¶20

feud between respondent No. 2 and Manjeet just 4-5 days ago and to beat him, he called up some boys from Khalsa college. While coming

¶21

out of the school, they said you come to village, we will see you. When

¶22

GAURAV 2014.09.12 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

-2-

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M-10348 of 2014 (O&M)

¶25

respondent No. 2 was going along with his friends Vipin Jartar and Rama from School, one car Endavor No. CH-01-H-0097 and one Alto car bearing No. HP-12-9650 stopped near village Kaibwala and some boys armed with swords, kirpan, danda, sticks etc came to their side and started giving injuries to them.

¶26

During the pendency of the trial, both the parties have entered into compromise, vide compromise deed dated 14.02.2014 (Annexure P-2).

¶27

In compliance of order dated 30.05.2014, report of CJM Chandigarh has been received. As per report, statements of complainant Ravi Kumar, injured-Vipin Kumar, Ram Chand @ Rama and Jagtar and petitioners namely Manjit Singh, Jasbir Singh @ Jassi and Parveen Singh @ Romi were recorded. Complainant in his statement, has submitted that he has compromised the matter with accused person. The compromise is with her free will and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. The complainant has no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the accused persons. To the same effect is

¶28

the joint statement of petitioners. Thus this Court has no hesitation in accepting the compromise as no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

¶29

GAURAV 2014.09.12 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

-3-

¶31

Crl. Misc. No. M-10348 of 2014 (O&M)

¶32

Consequently, in view of the status report and in view of

¶33

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan

¶34

Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 , the

¶35

law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder

¶36

Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.)

¶37

1052 and Jayrajsingh Digvijaysinh Rana vs. State of Gujarat and

¶38

another, 2012(12) SCC 401 , no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

¶39

Accordingly, F.I.R No. 190 dated 08.10.2013 under Sections

¶40

341/324/34/326 IPC, registered at P.S. North, Sector-3, Chandigarh, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

¶41

The petition stands disposed of qua petitioners.

¶42

09.09.2014

¶43

G Arora

¶44

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶45

GAURAV 2014.09.12 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Rani Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Master Capital Services Ltd. Vs Shreya Gupta

Mohit Raina Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sharda Rani Vs State of Haryana

Avtar Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Meena Kumari Vs Ut Chandigarh and Anr.