Allowed

Ranbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Dec 2017CRM-M/17758/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings registered under Sections 324 and 34 IPC as the parties had amicably settled the dispute without coercion, citing the Supreme Court in Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.311 dated 16.11.2013 registered for offences under Sections 324 and 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Ranbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-17758 of 2016

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:20.12.2017

¶5

Ranbir Singh alias Rana and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶14

Mr. Shubham Rana, Advocate for Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advcoate 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.311 dated 16.11.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 324 and 34 IPC at Police Station Ramamandi, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantRajesh Kumar 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

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a

¶19

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.21 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Cr. Misc. No.M-17758 of 2016

¶21

[2]

¶22

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, Jalandhar has sent report dated 6.12.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

¶23

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.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶25

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.

¶26

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 in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this

¶27

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.21 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Cr. Misc. No.M-17758 of 2016

¶29

[3]

¶30

petition is allowed and FIR No.311 dated 16.11.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 324 and 34 IPC at Police Station Ramamandi, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶31

December 20, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶32

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.21 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ranbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Singh and Anr. 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

Deepu @ Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Opinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh @ Mani @ Cheema Vs State of Haryana

Baljit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gursewak Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Manjit Singh Bawa Vs State of Punjab and Anr.