Allowed

Varinder Pal Singh @ Gagga and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2017CRM-M/25248/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 307, 324, IPC and Arms Act based on a valid compromise between parties, relying on reports confirming the settlement was voluntary, subject to deposit of costs with Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.94 dated 01.11.2014 registered under Sections 307, 324, 341, 148, 149 IPC and Arms Act is quashed subject to deposit of `10,000/- costs.

Varinder Pal Singh @ Gagga and Ors. Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-25248 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-25248 of 2015 Date of Decision: 13.12.2017

¶5

Varinder Pal Singh @ Gagga and others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶11

Present: - Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶12

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing FIR No.94 dated 01.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 307, 324, 341, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise dated 01.06.2015 (Annexure P-2) between the parties.

¶14

Pursuant to the orders dated 08.10.2015 and 13.10.2017 of this Court, the parties appeared before the trial Court and got their statements recorded. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, has submitted his reports vide letters bearing Nos.2160 dated 24.11.2017 and 2164 and 27.11.2017 duly forwarded by learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide letters Nos.2135/EC dated 24.11.2017 and 2152/EC dated 27.11.2017, respectively.

¶15

According to the reports, learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is satisfied that compromise entered into between the parties is without any pressure or coercion, influence and with their free virtue.

¶16

Ravinder Singh 2017.12.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this documentIn the instant case, quashment of FIR has been sought under

-2-

CRM-M-25248 of 2015

Section 307 IPC.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others Vs.

¶21

State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR(Criminal) 482 has held as

¶22

under: -

¶23

“31 (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.”

¶24

Ravinder Singh 2017.12.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

In Jagroop Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others in

¶26

-3-

¶27

CRM-M-25248 of 2015

¶28

CRM-M No.16154 of 2016 decided on 01.03.2017 , a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para No.8 of the judgment has observed as under: -

¶29

“{8}. In nutshell each case has to be considered on its own merits. While exercising inherent powers, High Court has to examine whether possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and would result in futility. Offence under Section 307 IPC falls under the category of heinous offence and generally it is to be treated offence against the State/society and not an individual offence. At the same time High Court would not base its decision merely because offence under Section 307 IPC is mentioned in the FIR or in the charge. It is still open before the Court as to whether insertion of offence under Section 307 IPC is based on evidence or it is just for the sake of incorporation in the FIR.”

¶30

Considering the reports of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and the fact that the compromise will bring harmony in relations between the parties, FIR No.94 dated 01.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 307, 324, 341, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana, is hereby quashed, subject to costs of ` 10,000/- to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority.

¶31

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Adjourned to 23.02.2018 for production of receipts qua deposit of

¶33

costs.

¶34

(RAMENDRA JAIN) December 13, 2017 JUDGE R.S. Ravinder Singh2017.12.15 14:34 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Whether Reportable Yes/No

Varinder Pal Singh @ Gagga and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varinder Pal Singh @ Gagga 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

Charanjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sachin Goyal Vs Charanjit Singh

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

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs M/S Sublime Chit Fund Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Mubarik@Mubba Vs State of Haryana