Allowed

Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2017CRM-M/19795/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR alleging assault and rioting. The High Court held that genuine post-facto compromise between parties rendered continuation of prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.136 dated 29.12.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.

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

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-19795 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:14.12.2017

¶5

Baldev Singh 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. Sushil Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

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

¶14

Ms. Rajpal Kaur, 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.136 dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and (Section 326 IPC, which was added later on) at Police Station Qadian, District Batala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantSukhjinder 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 2017.12.14 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-19795 of 2017

¶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, Batala has sent report dated 25.7.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

¶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 parties as well as learned State counsel 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 amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶26

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.14 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Misc. No.M-19795 of 2017

¶28

[3]

¶29

in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.136 dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and (Section 326 IPC, which was added later on) at Police Station Qadian, District Batala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶30

December 14, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶31

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.14 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Vikas Sharma Vs Niranjan Singh

M/S Amrit Agrovet Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Yadav

Ashraf Khan Vs Ram Devi & Ors.

Paramjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Naranga Ram Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Monu Vs State of Haryana & Anr.