Gurmeet Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.07.2024 Gurmeet Singh and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Ms. Seema Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

**** HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral) 1.

Petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.14 dated 11.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, added later on), registered at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2.

Vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the trial Court/Area Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the

-2compromise.

3.

In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has submitted a consolidated report vide letter dated 27.02.2024, which indicates that the parties appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:- "1. In view of statement of complainant and accused persons, compromise arrived between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without coercion or undue influence.

2. In the present FIR there are ten person involved namely Gurmeet Singh, Gurjant Singh, Sandeep @ Chintu, Harjeet Singh, Harjeet Kaur, Nachattar Kaur, Gurwinder Singh, Gurjinder Singh, Harjeet Singh and Manik Singhal.

3. All the aggrieved parties are party to the compromise.

4. No accused in the present case is absconder or has been declared as proclaimed offender.

5. As per statement of SI Udham Singh no other accused and aggrieved person is involved in the present case, except the aforesaid persons."

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has again reiterated that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest of all the concerned persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between the parties. It is submitted that respondent No.2/complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 5.

Learned State counsel does not raise any serious dispute regarding quashing of the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-1).

-36.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

7.

In the light of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and considering the entire facts, compromise, the statements of parties recorded before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, as well as his report dated 27.02.2024, since the parties have arrived at a compromise by amicably settling their disputes and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

7.1 Further, in the light of the aforementioned judicial precedents, when the parties have entered into an amicable compromise then continuation of the criminal proceedings would merely be an abuse of the process of Court.

8.

In order to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that there are bleak chances of conviction in the case, I am of the considered view that it would be in the fitness of things to quash the FIR (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise as the same would be securing the ends of justice.

9.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant petition is allowed. FIR No.14 dated 11.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, added later on), registered at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala and all the consequential proceedings

-4arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners. However, the same would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (each) to be deposited by each of the ten petitioners, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-, with the "Poor Patients Welfare Fund, P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh" and the said amount would be spent for the treatment of poor patients within the knowledge of its Medical Superintendent.

10.

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. 11.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. 04.07.2024 (HARSH BUNGER) Apurva JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No