Allowed

Bir Bhan and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2024CRM-M/20116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 323, 325, 34, 506 IPC on the basis of a compromise with the complainant. The Magistrate verified the compromise was voluntary; relying on the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh, the High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.222 dated 30.10.2023, PS Dhand, Kaithal, and all subsequent proceedings quashed qua petitioners.

Bir Bhan and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Another — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-20116-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 13.12.2024

Bir Bhan and another

… Petitioners

Versus

S t ate of Haryana and others

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶9

Present:Ms. Santosh Miglani, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.

¶10

Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate for Mr. Dalbir Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

¶11

¶12

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶13

Petitioners-Bir Bhan and Sunil Kumar has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR No.222, dated 30.10.2023, Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal, under Sections 323, 325, 34, 506 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties.

¶14

Vide order dated 17.05.2024, the parties had been directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate so as to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise.

¶15

Report of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Kaithal, has been received, wherein it has been reported that the statement of

¶16

MOHAN SINGH 2024.12.13 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-20116-2024 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

petitioners/accused Bir Bhan, Sunil Kumar and complainant/victim Sumit Kumar and Vikram have been recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter amongst themselves.

¶19

Complainant/victim Sumit Kumar and Vikram in their statement had stated that they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶20

The learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Kaithal, has specifically opined that the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid compromise and bearing in mind the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab , the present petition is allowed and FIR No.222, dated 30.10.2023, Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal, under Sections 323, 325, 34, 506 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶22

13.12.2024 mohan		(GURVIN	DER SINGH GILL) JUDGE
	Whether speaking /reasoned	Yes / No
	Whether Reportable	Yes / No

¶23

MOHAN SINGH 2024.12.13 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Bir Bhan and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bir Bhan and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Somwati Vs State of Haryana and Another

Palwinder Singh @ Bittu @ Khalsa Vs State of Punjab

Prabhjot Singh Prbhjot Singh Vs State of Haryana

M/S Tarun Enterprises and Anr. Vs Joginderpal Singh

Kultar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Noumi Dass and Other Vs State of Punjab and Ors.