Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
CRM-M-3659-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3659-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: 06.04.2022
Pronounced on: 08.04.2022 Kuldeep Singh
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Amarpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
DDR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 28.9.2020 Mamdot, District Ferozepur 325/323/34 IPC The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned DDR arising out of FIR No.168 dated 26.9.2020 under Sections 325/323/34 IPC Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur, has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved persons. 2.
During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved persons have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3. 3.
After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the DDR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved persons as respondents no.2 and 3. 4.
On 03-03-2022, the aggrieved persons Sarabjit Singh (Respondent no.2), and Jasdeep Kaur (Respondent no.3) appeared before the JMIC Ferozpur and stated that there would be no objection if the court quashes this DDR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 05-04-2022, the parties consented to the quashing of DDR and consequent proceedings without any threat.
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5.
Despite the opposition of the State's counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition. In the present case, the offences under sections ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.04.12 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3659-2022 325, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Given the legislative mandate, the prosecution can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
6.
In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion. 7.
In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stand vitiated."
8.
Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes above captioned DDR arising out of FIR No.168 dated 26.9.2020 under Sections 325/323/34 IPC Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner. The bail bonds of the petitioner are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed. Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE April 08, 2022 AK Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.04.12 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document