Partly allowed

Gurdip Singh and Ors. v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Oct 2024CRA-S/893/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction appeal under sections 307/326/324/148/149 IPC where surviving appellants compromised with the complainants after verification by the Sessions Court. Relying on precedents permitting post-conviction settlement, the court invoked Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings, set aside conviction and acquitted Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh; appeal abated against deceased Mohinder Singh.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed qua Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh: conviction and sentence set aside, appellants acquitted, bail bonds discharged; appeal abated qua deceased Mohinder Singh.

Gurdip Singh and Ors. Vs State of Pb. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRA-S-893-SB-2007 (O&M) Reserved on: 04.10.2024 Pronounced on: ��10.2024

¶6

Gurdip Singh & others ...Appellant(s)

¶7

Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Ms. Rashika Bansal, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶10

Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station Sections
45	27.3.2004	Sri Hargobindpur 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC
Case No.		Sessions case No.100 of 2004 Date of Decision: 18.4.2007
Names of a convict	ccused/	Gurdip Singh, Mohinder Singh, Chint Kaur (Acquitted) and Avtar Singh.
Conviction	under sections	307/324/323/326/34 IPC
Sentence i	mposed	RI for maximumperiod of 3years and fine

¶15

This appellant-convicts had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal seeking setting aside of their conviction and order of sentence.

¶16

Vide order dated 3.5.2007, the appeal stands admitted and subsequently, vide order dated 24.5.2007, the substantive sentence of the appellants was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶17

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant-convict filed CRM-6237-2024 stating that they have settled the matter with the complainant/victim(s) and on their joint request, the parties were directed to appear before the Sessions Court for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise so arrived. The appellants were also ordered to deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- with the Sadhna Society for Mentally Handicapped, Near Housing Board, Chowk, Raen Basera Building, Manimanja, Sector 13,

¶18

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶19

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶20

��

¶21

Chandigarh.

¶22

Accordingly, report of the concerned Court has been received, the relevant extract of which reads as follows:

¶23

Nam Cour	e of the reporting t Sessions Judge, Gur	daspur
1.	Number of persons arrayed accused in the FIR	1. Mohinder Singh; 2. Gurdip Singh; 3. Avtar Singh; 4. Baljit Singh and 5. Chint Kaur
2.	Dates on which the statement(s) of the complainant/ victims(s)/ aggrieved persons(s)were recorded	Baljit Singh was declared as PO but he had expired on 27.5.2009.
3.	Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence	Yes
4.	Whether the accused persons are involved in anyother FIR or not	No
5.	Number of victims/complainants in the FIR and whether all the victim/complainant as well as accused are party to the compromise in question	Nirmal Singh and Balbir Singh. Accused Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh are party to the compromise but the remaining accused namely Mohinder Singh, Chint Kaur and Baljit Singh have alreadyexpired.

¶24

Costs of Rs.25,000/- is also stated to have been deposited by the appellant-convicts.

¶25

Counsel for the complainant, who is appearing for the petitioner-accused in the connected petition i.e. CRM-M-3217-24 has stated, on instructions, that they would have no objection if based on compromise, the appeal is allowed. The fine is stated to have been deposited.

¶26

In the present appeal, there were five accused in total, out of whom, accused Baljit Singh was declared as proclaimed offender during trial and on 27.5.2009, he expired, whereas accused Chint Kaur was acquitted of the charges levelled against her. Thus, accused Gurdip Singh, Mohinder Singh and Avtar Singh stand convicted and sentenced, who had filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. However, as per the statements of the parties recorded before the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on 31.7.2024, appellant-convict Mohinder Singh is stated to have expired on 12.8.2016. Thus, the present appeal stands abated qua Mohinder Singh.

¶27

During the pendency of this appeal, FIR No.69 dated 12.6.2019 under Section 436, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Sri Hargobindpur, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur was registered

¶28

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶29

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶30

��

¶31

by the Gurdeep Singh (accused in the present appeal) against the Nirmal Singh (complainant in the present appeal), Balbir Singh and Kulwant Singh. Aggrieved against the same, the accused-petitioner Balbir Singh approached this Court by filing a separate petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR based on compromise with the complainant/victim(s), which has been dealt with separately.

¶32

Admittedly, appellant-convicts Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh, the surviving convicts in CRA-S-893-SB-2007 have compromised the matter with complainant/victim(s) Nirmal Singh and Balbir Singh, (who is accused in FIR No.69 dated 12.6.2019). In these circumstances, if this Court does not interject and disrupt criminal proceedings qua the appellant-convict, it would, on the face of it, be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which, in addition to life, also guarantees liberty. A pragmatic approach is whenever a matter is compromised with one of the convicts, this Court should not adjourn the matter for a final hearing and wait for the compromise to happen at that stage but to protect the liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court must close the proceedings qua those convicts with whom the matter has been compromised and can legally be quashed.

¶33

In the present case, the offences under sections 307, 326, 324, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 436 IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the prosecution qua the non-compoundable offences can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings, taking into account the fact that both the parties belong to the same village and they must be living there for generations and might continue to live, who knows for how long, especially when three out of the five accused in FIR No.45 have already expired. In the closely-knit village community, when the parties have buried their hatchets, the continuation of criminal proceedings will not advance the reformative purposes of jurisprudence just for the sake of deterrence, and this Court should step forward by closing this continuing cause of bitterness.

¶34

It would be relevant to refer to the judicial precedents in which the convictions were set aside based on the compromise.:

¶35

a). In Ram Prasad and Another v. State of Uttar Pardesh, Cr.A Nos. 308309 of 1980, decided on April 21, 1980, Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and after that based on compromise, accepted the compounding of offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the appellants.

¶36

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶37

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶38

��

¶39

b). In Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, (1983) 1 SCC 368, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising against the conviction under section 325 IPC, held,

¶40

[5]. All the offences for which the appellants are convicted are compoundable and the compromise can be entered into with the permission of the court. Looking to the chastened attitude of the accused and the commendable attitude of the injured complainant, in order to restore harmony in the society, we accept the compromise. We grant permission to enter into the compromise and accept the same. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on both the appellants. If they are on bail, their bail-bonds will be cancelled. If they are in jail, they will be released from the jail forthwith.

¶41

c). In Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P., 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 455, Supreme Court, the convict had gone to Hon’ble Supreme Court against his conviction by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, which was upheld by Sessions and High Court. After that, the convict and the victim entered into an out-of-court compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the parties' affidavits filed in support of the compromise and observed that parties had willingly and voluntarily settled the matter. To maintain good relations, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted permission to them to compound the said offenses and order the acquittal.

¶42

d). In Parameswari v. Vennila, (2000) 10 SCC 348, the appellants before Hon'ble Supreme Court had been convicted under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC. After that, they arrived at a settlement with the complainant, in the presence of panchayatdars of their village, and placed on record the duly signed compromise, and parties filed a joint application for permission to compound the offences. While observing that the offence involved was compoundable with the wife's consent and permission of the Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted permission to compound the offence, and resultantly the appellants stood acquitted of the offence for which they have been held guilty.

¶43

e). In M.D. Balal Mian v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR (SCW) 5190, out of three convicts, one was convicted under Section 376 IPC, and the other two were convicted only under Sections 325 & 323 of IPC. After the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, all three convicts approached Hon’ble Supreme Court. Although Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find any scope for granting special leave by the convict challenging his conviction

¶44

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶45

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶46

��

¶47

under section 376 IPC, however, granted the other permission to the other two convicts to compound the offences under Section 320 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and acquitted both of them.

¶48

f). In Vuyyuru Ramachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 AIR (SCW) 2396, the appellant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against upholding the conviction under section 354 IPC. The victim of molestation came to terms with the convict and applied to compound the offence. Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed such application for compounding and resultantly acquitted the appellant under Section 320 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶49

g). In Ramachandra Singh v. State of Bihar, 2003(10) SCC 234, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶50

[5]. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the state and taken into, consideration the fact and circumstances of the case. In view of the compromise it appears that grievance, if any, of the complainant KamleshKumari Devi is over. Indeed in view of the compromise the accused appellants stand acquitted of the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances the sentence passed by the trial Court and maintained by the High Court deserves to be modified so far as offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is concerned.

¶51

[6]. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment passed on them for offence under Section 498-A is reduced to the period already undergone. In so far as appellant No. 3 is concerned, in our opinion, it will meet the ends of justice if he is dealt with under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and released on probation of good conduct. The sentence of imprisonment passed on appellant No. 3 is set aside and it is directed that he shall be released on his entering into a bond with one surety in an amount of Rs. 5000/- to appear before the trial Court and receive sentence on being called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

¶52

h). In K. Kandasamy v. K.P.M.V.P. Chandrasekaran, (2005) 4 SCC 349, based on the compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the appellants/convicts of the offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code.

¶53

i). In Khursheed and others v. State of U.P, Appeal (crl.) 1302 of 2007,

¶54

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶55

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶56

��

¶57

decided on 28-9-2007, the appellants were convicted by Trial Court under sections 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. Their appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision petition was also dismissed by High Court. The convicts approached the Apex Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court held,

¶58

[12]. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 IPC is covered by sub- section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. It is thus clear that an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is also compounded with the permission of the Court.

¶59

[13]. The parties have compounded the offences. As stated in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and his mother Kulsoom @ Bhoori (injured) did not want any action against the appellants (accused). The parties are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for last many years and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that to continue sweet relationship and harmony, complainant side does not want to take any action against the accused. A prayer is, therefore, made to accept the compromise.

¶60

[14]. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and considering the Deed of Compromise and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if we grant necessary permission for compounding an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the parties.

¶61

[15]. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the compounding of offence under the section shall have an effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The resultant effect of compounding of offences would be that the accused should be acquitted. In other words, once the offences have been compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted.

¶62

j). In Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 794, after the conviction under section 498-A IPC, the victim wife and the convict husband had compromised their disputes and sought setting aside of conviction based on the compromise. Hon’ble Supreme Court holds as follows,

¶63

[10]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of

¶64

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶65

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶66

��

¶67

law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from the FIR lodged under section 498A Indian Penal Code. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶68

k). In Manoj & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr. A No. 1530 of 2008, Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on compromise, accepted the compounding of the offence under section 324 IPC and acquitted the appellants.

¶69

l). In Md. Abdul Sufan Laskar v. State of Assam, (2008) 9 SCC 333, based on a compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under section 324 IPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court took similar views in Mathura Singh v. State of U.P., 2009(13) SCC 420 and in Gampa Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Public Prosecutor, 2008(sup) Cri. L.R. 440: Law Finder Doc Id # 521064.

¶70

m). In C.Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 13 SCC 790, after the conviction and sentence under section 302 IPC, the deceased's family had compromised the matter with the accused. Rejecting the compromise, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once the parties have settled their disputes, they could live in peace, but that cannot be a ground to pass a judgment of acquittal.

¶71

n). In Gampa Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Law Finder Doc Id # 521064; 2008(1) OriLR839, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶72

[3]. The Trial Court convicted the sole appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rupees one thousand; in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal being preferred, the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. When the matter was taken to the High Court in revision, the conviction and sentence under Section 326 I.P.C. have been set aside and the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Before this Court, a joint petition of compromise has been filed wherein it has been stated that the parties have settled their disputes; as such, they be permitted to compound the offence. In our view, the prayer is just and must be granted. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are set aside, in view of the

¶73

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶74

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶75

��

¶76

compounding.

¶77

o). In Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 6 SCC 688, permitting the parties to compromise the conviction under section 324 IPC, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, “The injured complainant and two other injured are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the composition of offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code shall have the effect of an acquittal of the appellant with whom the offence has been compounded.”

¶78

p). In Surat Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand), 2012(12) SCC 772, Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on compromise, permitted the parties to compound their offences under section 354 and 506 IPC.

¶79

q). in Jeetu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2013 11 SCC 489 it is the duty of the appellate Court to arrive at its own independent conclusion after examining the material on record. This exercise has however to be conducted after considering the material on record. There is no power conferred by the Code either on the appellate Court/revisional Court to acquit an accused convicted for a commission of a non-compoundable offence only on the ground that compromise has been entered into between the convict and the informant/complainant.

¶80

r). In Dasan v. State of Kerala, 2014:INSC:54 [Para 10], (2014) 12 SCC 666, the Hon’ble Supreme Court converted the conviction from 326 IPC to 325 IPC and, based on compromise, accepted the compounding of the offence under section 325 IPC and acquitted the appellant.

¶81

s). In Padmalayan v. Sarasan, (2014) 13 SCC 798, Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted post-conviction compromise for offence under section 324 IPC.

¶82

t). In Sathiyamoorthy v. State, 2014(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 867, after observing that after the compromise they have been staying peacefully in the village. It is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶83

[6]. Offences under Sections 341 and 325 are compoundable. In view of the settlement they can be permitted to be compounded. However, offences under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC are not compoundable.

¶84

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶85

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶86

��

¶87

Hence, permission to compound them cannot be granted. However, since the accused and the victim have entered into a compromise, we feel that it would be in the interest of both sides to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused under Sections 325 and 341 of the IPC to the sentence already undergone.

¶88

[7]. In Ram Lal and anr. v. State of J & K, 2000(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92 : (1999)2 SCC 213 the accused were convicted for offence under Section 326 of the IPC, which is non-compoundable. Looking to the fact that the parties had arrived at a settlement and victim had no grievance, this Court reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 326 to sentence already undergone by the appellants-accused. We are inclined to follow similar course.

¶89

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The offences under Sections 341 and 325 of the IPC, for which the appellants are convicted, are permitted to be compounded because they are compoundable. The appellants are acquitted of the said offences. The appellants are stated to have undergone more than six months imprisonment. So far as offences under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC are concerned, the conviction of the appellants for the said offences is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them subject to the appellants paying L 30,000/- as compensation to victimMurugesan. Compensation be paid within three months from the date of this judgment.

¶90

u). In Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2014:INSC:505 [Para 5], (2014) 13 SCC 275, the appellant was convicted by Trial Court under section 420 IPC. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision petition was also dismissed by High Court. The convict approached the Apex Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court held,

¶91

[5]. We are informed that out of two years imprisonment the appellant has undergone six months imprisonment. Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC for which the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is compoundable with the permission of the court. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge.

¶92

v). In Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, 2015:INSC:301 , (2015) 8 SCC 286, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising out of conviction, permitted the compounding of offence under section 494 IPC.

¶93

w). In Shankar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.A 982 of 2017 Law

¶94

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶95

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶96

��

¶97

Finder Doc Id # 8378562, Hon’ble Supreme Court while permitting postconviction compromise, by holding the offence to fall under section 324 IPC, held,

¶98

[8]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reasons to refuse permission to the parties who have compromised the offences which were compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1998. If it is so, compounding can be permitted and the appellants-accused can be acquitted in view of Section 320 (8) of the Cr.P.C., which expressly enacts that where the composition of an offence under this section is recorded by the court, it shall have effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. We order accordingly.

¶99

x). In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013:PHHC:026805-DB [Para 17,

¶100

21], 2013 (4) RCR (Cri) 102, a Division Bench of this Court holds,

¶101

[17]. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case.

¶102

[21]. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances where not only the parties but their close relatives (including daughter and son-in-law of respondent No. 2) have also supported the amicable settlement, we are of the considered view that the negation of the compromise would disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent rift amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family. Non-acceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards.

¶103

This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter. In the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, the continuation of these proceedings qua the appellant-convicts Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh will not serve any fruitful purpose whatsoever. Given the above,

¶104

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶105

CRA-S-893-SB-2007

¶106

��

¶107

because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is invoked to disrupt the prosecution and quash the proceedings mentioned above, qua appellants-convict Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh. The judgment of conviction and sentences qua the convict/appellants Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh is set aside, and their bail bonds are discharged.

¶108

The appeal qua Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh is allowed, whereas appeal qua Mohinder Singh is abated. Appellants Gurdip Singh and Avtar Singh are acquitted of the charges. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

¶109

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶110

October ��2024 AK Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶111

ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.10.28 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Gurdip Singh and Ors. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdip Singh and Ors. v. State of Pb.

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

Nirmal Singh Alias Nimma Vs State of Punjab

Rohtash Vs State of Haryana

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Varun Bainsla Vs Anil Kumar

Joginder Singh Mattu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.