The High Court allowed petitions seeking quashing of an FIR and DDR under various IPC sections. Relying on matrimonial compromise principles, the court quashed proceedings based on a verified settlement recorded by the trial court.
Quashing of FIR No.28 and DDR No.47 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
255
2023:PHHC:104596 1. CRM-M-25861-2023 Date of decision: August 11th , 2023
Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
2. CRM-M-27081-2023
Tarsem Singh and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Maan, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM-M-25861-2023) for respondents No.2 and 3 (in CRM-M-27081-2023).
Ms. Sukhman Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM-M-27081-2023) for respondent No.2 (in CRM-M-25861-2023).
Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the instant petitions is for quashing of FIR No.28 dated 28.04.2023 under Sections 325, 341, 323, 148, 149 of the IPC as well as DDR No.47 dated 28.04.2023 under Sections 458, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC registered at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-2)
PUNEET SACHDEVA 2023.08.12 06:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. Chandigarh
CRM-M-25861 and 27081-2023
-2-
Vide orders dated 19.05.2023 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 05.07.2023 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at, between them.
Reports have since been received from learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sardulgarh, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, wherein the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified and confirmed. As per the report compromise has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the complainant in the respective case has also made statement to the effect that they would have no objection if the FIR as well as DDR qua the accused-petitioners is quashed.
The trial Court has annexed the statements of the parties in original along with its report.
Learned State counsel too submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioners and private respondents are the only aggrieved person in the FIR/DDR in question.
In view of the report of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sardulgarh and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , the instant petitions are allowed. The aforesaid FIR as well as DDR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
PUNEET SACHDEVA 2023.08.12 06:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. Chandigarh
CRM-M-25861 and 27081-2023
-3-
quashed.
Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
Copy of this order be placed on the file of connected
case.
| August 11th Puneet |
, 2023 | (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE |
|---|---|---|
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
|
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No |
PUNEET SACHDEVA 2023.08.12 06:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and DDR should be quashed in view of a valid compromise arrived between the parties.
Whether the trial court's report regarding the compromise justifies quashing the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶29
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶29
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and others
State of Punjab and another
Tarsem Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Manjari Nehru Kaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
