Quashed

Hardeep Singh @ Babbu v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2016CRM-M/10582/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR No. 1 dated 3.1.2016 under Sections 354, 448 IPC and consequential proceedings. The court relied on the voluntary compromise between parties and reports stating no undue influence, following the Full Bench judgment in Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and all consequent proceedings arising out of it are quashed qua the petitioner.

Hardeep Singh @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10582 of 2016 -1-

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-10582 of 2016 Date of Decision: 19.10.2016

¶4

Hardeep Singh @ Babbu

¶5

......Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

¶9

Present: Mr. Anoop Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. Nitin Rampal, Advocate for Mr. G.S.Khosa, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶12

¶13

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)

¶14

The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 1 dated 3.1.2016 registered under Sections 354, 448 IPC, Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of written compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Report has been received from the trial Court after statements of the parties were recorded regarding the compromise. The trial Court has reported that the compromise is voluntary and without any pressure or undue influence. The trial Court has also sent copy of the statements of the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State on instructions submits that petitioner is the only accused and respondent No. 2 is the only aggrieved

¶17

person in this FIR.

¶18

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2016.10.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

-2-

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-10582 of 2016

¶21

No useful purpose would be served to keep the FIR pending.

¶22

In view of the statements and report of the trial Court and the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the instant petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR and all consequent proceedings conducted on the basis thereof are quashed qua the petitioner.

¶23

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

¶24

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE

¶25

October 19, 2016 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶26

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2016.10.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Hardeep Singh @ Babbu v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh @ Babbu v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjit Kaur Vs Sunder Singh

Sachin Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Amrinderdeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Atamjit Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Yashpreet Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.