Allowed

Dalbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2016CRM-M/20313/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR alleged to involve offences under the IPC where a genuine compromise was reached. The court, noting the settlement and report from the trial court, relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR registered on 29.1.2016 at Police Station Jandiala for offences under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 325, and 326 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Date of decision:12.12.2016

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Criminal Misc. No.M-20313 of 2016

¶4

.....

¶5

Dalbir Singh alias Bira and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶14

Mr. Manjit Saini, Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2.

¶15

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.17 dated 29.1.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC and (Sections 325 and 326 IPC, which were added later on) at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantSatnam Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioners attacked him and inflicted injuries. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.

¶18

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.12.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-20313 of 2016

¶20

[2]

¶21

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar has sent her report dated 17.8.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

¶22

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 and have gone through the record.

¶24

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

¶25

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been

¶26

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.12.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Misc. No.M-20313 of 2016

¶28

[3]

¶29

amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.17 dated 29.1.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC and (Sections 325 and 326 IPC, which were added later on) at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar City and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶30

December 12, 2016. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶31

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.12.13 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Dalbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalbir Singh and Ors. 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

Jagmohan Vs State of Haryana

Sukhraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parveen Devi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. Vs Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.