This order allowed two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking quashing of an FIR and a Daily Diary Report on the basis of a genuine, amicable compromise recorded by the trial court.
FIR No.92 dated 21.12.2012 and DDR No.17 dated 21.12.2012 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-43912 of 2017
.....
Date of decision:19.12.2017
Pal Singh and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-43907 of 2017
.....
Kartar Singh and others
.....Petitioners v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Chetan Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.M-43912 of 2017 and for complainant-respondents No.2 to 5 in Cr. Misc. No.M-43907 of 2017.
Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.M-43907 of 2017 and for complainant-respondents No.2 to 5 in Cr. Misc. No.M-43912 of 2017.
Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Inderjit Singh, J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal
miscellaneous petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-43912 of 2017 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.92 dated 21.12.2012
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-43912 of 2017
[2]
registered for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala and Criminal Misc. No.M-43907 of 2017 filed for quashing of DDR No.17 dated 21.12.2012 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC in FIR No.92 dated 21.12.2012 and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
The FIR and the DDR were got registered against each other by the petitioners of both the petitions as dispute arose as a result of fight between the parties in which injuries were received by both the parties. This is a case of version and cross-version. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have effected a compromise.
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, Patiala has sent two reports dated 14.12.2017 and 18.12.2017 respectively in both the cases submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainants 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 and the DDR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-43912 of 2017
[3]
Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
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.
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, these petitions are allowed. FIR No.92 dated 21.12.2012 registered for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala and DDR No.17 dated 21.12.2012 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC in FIR No.92 dated 21.12.2012 and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
December 19, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitions filed for quashing FIR and DDR on basis of compromise should be allowed.
Whether the recorded compromise is genuine and without pressure.
Whether continuance of criminal prosecution is an exercise in futility after settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶36
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pal Singh and others
Kartar Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
