Surjit Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-15063 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:27.7.2016 Surjit Singh and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents ....

Present:

Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainantrespondent No.2. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.41 dated 22.2.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2) entered into between the parties. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of complainant-Rashpal Singh on the allegations that a litigation has been pending in a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC etc. at Ferozepur and the complainant had to be cross-examined on the next date of hearing. The petitioners were allegedly pressurising the complainant not to depose in this case. As per the further allegations, the complainant was

[2] riding on motorcycle and in the meantime, the petitioners intercepted him on a Scorpio vehicle and thereafter fired at the complainant, resultantly, some pellets hit below the knee on his right leg. The petitioners and the complainant are closely related with each other and they have already good relations and cooperation among each other. There was no enmity between the parties. Challan has not yet been presented before the Court as the investigation is at the initial stage. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have resolved their dispute amongst themselves with the help of respectable persons known to both the parties. Respondent No.2 has no objection if the above mentioned FIR is quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no injury dangerous to life has been inflicted to the complainant and as the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and challan has not yet been filed, therefore, the FIR should be quashed on the basis of compromise.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and related to each other, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, has sent his report dated 8.7.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions

[3] from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 and have gone through the record. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.41 dated 22.2.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom out of the same are hereby quashed. July 27, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*

[4] NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No