Dilbagh Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-20375 of 2017 Date of Decision: 31.8.2017 Dilbagh Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA

Present:

Mr. K.B.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S.Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

**** HARI PAL VERMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. 49 dated 16.2.2015 under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

This Court vide order dated 2.6.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has

-2submitted report dated 14.6.2017 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure or coercion and the compromise is valid.

Respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Sukhnaib Singh has made his statement with regard to compromise before learned Magistrate on 9.06.2017. The same is reproduced as under:- "Stated that FIR of this case was registered against accused/petitioner namely Dilbagh Singh son of Gurmail Singh on my statement. I have effected a compromise with the accused/petitioner. Now I do not want to proceed with the present case against the petitioner and I have no objection if FIR No. 49 dated 16.2.2015, under sections 279, 337, 338 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Bathinda is quashed against the petitioner. The compromise has been effected with the intervention of respectables. Now I have no grudge against the accused/petitioner. Compromise has been effected without any pressure, undue influence or coercion.

I produce on record self attested copy of my identity card as proof of my identity." Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 49 dated 16.2.

-3therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise dated 26.4.2017 (Annexure P-2).

(HARI PAL VERMA) JUDGE August 31, 2017 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No