Allowed

Manjit Singh Bawa v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Dec 2017CRM-M/20197/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR based on a settlement between parties. Court found compromise genuine and undisputed, holding prosecution futile as per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0076 dated 30.4.2017 registered for offences under Sections 323, 336, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Manjit Singh Bawa 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-20197 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:20.12.2017

Manjit Singh Bawa

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr. Yagyaang Ajay, Advocate for Mr. Kawaljyot Singh, 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.0076 dated 30.4.2017 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 336 and 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantRaj Kumar on the allegations that the accused-petitioner 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 2017.12.21 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-20197 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala has sent report dated 12.12.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

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

¶26

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

¶27

Cr. Misc. No.M-20197 of 2017

¶28

[3]

¶29

petition is allowed and FIR No.0076 dated 30.4.2017 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 336 and 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶30

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

¶31

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

Manjit Singh Bawa v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh Bawa 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

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

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

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