Allowed

Jagtar Singh @ Boxer and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2017CRM-M/32077/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC. The court quashed an FIR registered for trespass, criminal intimidation, and unlawful possession of arms due to a genuine compromise between the accused petitioners and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 75 dated 10.5.2016 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.

Jagtar Singh @ Boxer and Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M- 32077 2016

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:21.2.2017

¶5

Jagtar Singh alias Boxer 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. Dilpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Rajpreet S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶14

Mr. Vivek Salathia, 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.75 dated 10.5.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 452 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantSukhdev Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioners trespassed their house and started abusing him by saying about his girls and said that he will abduct his son Amandeep Singh's daughter and started fighting with complainant's wife. Jagtar Singh carried out his pistol and started saying by pointing the same towards them that he would definitely kill their whole

¶18

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-32077 of 2016

¶20

[2]

¶21

family on that day. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.

¶22

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, Amritsar has sent his report dated 20.1.2017 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 Assistant Advocate General, Punjab 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

¶26

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Misc. No.M-32077 of 2016

¶28

[3]

¶29

conviction are bleak.

¶30

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 petition is allowed and FIR No.75 dated 10.5.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 452 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶31

February 21, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶32

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Jagtar Singh @ Boxer and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh @ Boxer 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

Kewal Krishan Vs Ashok Sethi

Bhopal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Naresh Vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Vs Pardeep Kumar

Sajan Mishra Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bahadur Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab