Allowed

Gurpreet Singh @ Rago and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2023CRM-M/30575/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 336/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. The order was based on a recorded compromise between parties verified by a Magistrate, noting no coercion and no weapon recovery.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.46 dated 07.07.2022 under Sections 336 read with 34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Gurpreet Singh @ Rago and Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:125503

¶2

CRM-M-30575-2022 (O&M)

¶3

203

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30575-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2023

¶5

Gurpreet Singh @ Rago and another …Petitioners VS State of Punjab and another …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶7

Present: - Mr. Gobind Singh Randhawa, Advocate, For the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Additional A.G., Punjab.

¶9

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate, For respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.46 dated 07.07.2022 registered under Sections 336 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station, Mehta, District Amritsar (Rural), District Amritsarand all other consequential proceedings arising therefromon the basis ofcompromise dated 10.07.2022 (Annexure P- 2), stated to have been arrivedbetween the parties.

¶13

Since quashing was sought on the basis of compromise, this Courton 18.07.2022had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements in support of thecompromise. A veracity report was also called for.

¶14

Report dated 23.08.2022 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahibhad been received. Report reveals that statements ofcomplainant party i.e. respondent No.2 as also of accused/present petitioners herein, were duly recorded. It is opined that a compromise has been arrived atwithout any pressure, undue influence or coercion. The report is accompaniedby the statements of parties. It is apparent that the complainant/respondent No.2and accused/petitioners have arrived at a compromise voluntarily and withoutany coercion.

¶15

Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 states that hewould have no objection to the quashing of FIR in question.

¶16

VANDANA 2023.09.26 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

2023:PHHC:125503

¶19

CRM-M-30575-2022 (O&M)

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that provisions of Arms Act have been wrongly invoked neither weapon was recovered nor is there any use of weapon. In any case, complainant has not supported the prosecution version in the compromise statement, contends the learned counsel.

¶21

On a Court query, learned State counsel does not controvert that no unlicensed weapon was recovered during investigation.

¶22

This Court in appropriate cases can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings/FIR on the basis ofcompromise. A reference in this regard may be made to a decision dated29.09.2021 of the Supreme Court in case titled “ Ramgopal and anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh”¹ and a Full Bench decision of this Court in“ Kulwinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others”² .

¶23

In the premise it is an appropriate case for exercise of powerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedingsinitiated in the light of impugned FIR.

¶24

Petition is thus allowed. FIR No.46 dated 07.07.2022registered under Sections 336 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station, Mehta, District Amritsar (Rural), District Amritsar and all proceedings emanatingthere from qua the petitioners stand quashed.

¶25