Allowed

Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Mar 2017CRM-M/6023/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 506, and 34 IPC based on a compromise settlement between the parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedents and a Full Bench decision, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the litigation following the settlement.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 117 dated 25.11.2013 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

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

¶1

CRM-M-6023-2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-6023-2016 Date of Decision:- 16.03.2017

Dalbir Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Karambir Singh Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Manpreet Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶16

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.117 dated 25.11.2013, under Sections 354, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, on the basis of compromise dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2).

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2013, petitioner along with Jatinder Singh @ Sonu son of Balbir Singh had gone to the house of the complainant Paramjit Kaur, which was under construction and it is alleged that petitioner was removing earth from the boundary wall adjoining Naresh Kumar house of Jaswant Kaur wife of late Balwinder Singh and petitioner along 2017.03.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-6023-2016

¶19

-2-

¶20

with other co-accused went there and caught hold of the arm of the complainant Paramjit Kaur and Jatinder Singh did the obnoxious act. The role of the petitioner is of holding the arm and nothing more than this.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the peace and harmony, the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons, vide compromise dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2).

¶22

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court, was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2), by way of order dated 09.01.2017, by this Court.

¶23

In compliance of order dated 09.01.2017 of this Court, the report of the Additional Civil Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur dated 14.03.2017 has been received. As per the report, both the parties have not turned up for recording their statement with regard to compromise.

¶24

ASI Salinder Singh, the investigating officer, has identified the complainant-Paramjeet Kaur (respondent No.2), who is present in Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on the affidavit of complainant. As per her affidavit, she has compromised the mattter with the intervention of well wishers, relatives and does not want to proceed with the case further.

¶26

Consequently, in view of the above-said affidavit and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs . State of Madhya Pradesh and another , 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) Naresh Kumar 2017.03.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and 910 ; Madan Mohan Abbot Vs . State of Punjab , 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-6023-2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

429 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another , 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 , no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

¶30

Accordingly, FIR No.117 dated 25.11.2013, under Sections 354, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur,and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2).

¶31

The present petition stands disposed of.

¶32

March 16, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE

¶33

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
Whether reportable	No

¶34

Naresh Kumar 2017.03.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Vikas Bajwa Vs State of Punjab

Anita Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mander Singh Vs State of Punjab

Happy Singh Vs State of Punjab

State of Haryana Vs Parveen

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.