Tarsem Singh Alias Tarsem v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-12173-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12173 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 Tarsem Singh @ Tarsem .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab and Others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL

Present:

Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

**** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) CRM-9078-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-14925-2025 Allowed as prayed for and Annexures P-3 to P-6 are taken on record. Main case 1.

By way of this petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.29 dated 21.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections336, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar on the basis of

CRM-M-12173-2025 -2compromise dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2.

Notice of motion.

3.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

4.

Mr. Rohit, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Parminder Singh has filed his Memorandum of Appearance and confirm the factum of the compromise having been effected between the parties and states that the respondents have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question. 5.

Learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.

6.

Pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by this Court, affidavit of victim namely Parminder Singh@ Palminder Singh has also been annexed alongwith affidavits of the petitioner as well as that of the complainant/victim party.

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

8.

In view of the above, even if this case is taken to its logical conclusion, it would only be an exercise in futility as the parties have already settled their differences, therefore, no purpose would be served in wasting the time and resources of the State in pursuing this case to its pre-ordained end. It would, therefore, be better to give a quietus to the issue at this stage. 9.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.29 dated 21.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 336, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall

CRM-M-12173-2025 -3stand quashed. 10.

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. (H.S. GREWAL) 08.04.2025 JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No