The Criminal Court quashed FIR No.195 registered for offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 IPC. The court accepted that a genuine compromise was arrived at between the parties, making further prosecution futile.
FIR No.195 dated 20.11.2015 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom 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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-2101 of 2016
.....
Date of decision:12.2.2016
Malkiat Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Simble, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
None for the complainant-respondent No.2.
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.195 dated 20.11.2015 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).
The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantHarpreet Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioner attacked him and inflicted injuries. Now with intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-2101 of 2016
[2]
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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, has sent his report dated 5.2.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits 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.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.
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.
Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-2101 of 2016
[3]
in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.195 dated 20.11.2015 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar City and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
February 12, 2016.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge
hsp
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner should be quashed in view of a genuine compromise between the parties.
Whether continuation of criminal prosecution would serve any purpose after the dispute has been amicably settled.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherApplied¶29
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Malkiat Singh
State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
