Allowed

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2024CRM-M/5259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender in an FIR arising from a compromise between parties; interim directions were issued for surrender and interim bail with costs, and the petition was ultimately allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned proclamation order challenged set aside; pending applications disposed of.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-5259-2024 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

403

¶4

CRM-M-5259-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 05.11.2024

MANJIT SINGH

....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

¶11

Present : Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG Punjab.

¶13

¶14

SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)

¶15

By way of present petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought quashing of impugned order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned �� , Phillaur, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender in case FIR No.61 dated 10.08.2016 registered under Sections 323, 325, 452, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Noormahal, District Jalandhar.

¶16

�� !�� "#�� $��%��

¶17

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.11.07 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

CRM-M-5259-2024 (O&M) -2-

¶19

#� ��&��

¶20

�� !��

¶21

'� (��%��

¶22

��%��

¶23

“2. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner and the other co-accused at the instance of respondent No. 2 and even a cross version vide DDR No 003 dated 08.09.2016 under Sections 323, 341, 34 IPC has been registered at Police Noormehal, District Jalandhar Rural in the same FIR. He contends that during the course of proceedings, the petitioner was granted concession of bail and subsequently in the year 2019 compromise was effected between the parties vide Annexure P-2 dated 14.02.2019.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that a compromise petition had been filed by the co-accused, i.e. CRM-M-8989-2019 ‘Harjit Singh @ Sukha and others vs State of Punjab and others’ and vide order dated 29.05.2019, this Court had quashed the FIR (supra) as well as the DDR (supra) leaving the petitioner and one co-accused, namely Navjot Singh. He further contends that the aforesaid co-accused, namely Navjot Singh, also filed a quashing petition on basis of same compromise (Annexure P-2) which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2022 passed in CRM-M2051-2020, ‘Navjot Singh @ Kandola Navjot Singh vs. State of Punjab and others’.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner being under impression that compromise has been effected and his presence is not required, he did not appear in the Trial Court, leading to passing of the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-4), declaring him proclaimed offender in the case. He further contends that absence of the petitioner was not intentional but due to the aforesaid circumstances and the petitioner is ready to appear before the Trial Court.

¶26

5. Notice of motion, returnable for 22.02.2024.

¶27

6. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, DAG, Punjab, present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State-respondent and does not dispute the factual matrix of the case.

¶28

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.11.07 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶29

CRM-M-5259-2024 (O&M) -3-

¶30

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has given the statement that since it is a State case, as such, respondent No. 2 be deleted from the array of parties.

¶31

8. Ordered accordingly.

¶32

9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate with in a period of 07 days from today and in that event, he is ordered to be released on interim bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to its satisfaction and also subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 10,000/-, to be deposited with the Poor Patients Wefare Fund of the PGIMER, Chandigarh.”

¶33

)� *��+��%��

¶34

�� ,�� %�� -�� 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned ��, Phillaur,� ��

¶35

��+��07.02.2024��

¶36

7 . The petition stands allowed.

¶37

8 . Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶38

(SANJIV BERRY)

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

05.11.2024 S.Sharma(syr)

¶41

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶42

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.11.07 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sanju Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Satinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sharwan Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Talim Vs State of Haryana