Harpreet Singh @ Lambu @ Kumar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

 

   

   



  !"!

#$% &

'( )*




                      

$  +, - . /.   

     

    !"     # $$$ /. *-0 )12 % &          '   ()*    +    +  , '  ,-

.

/0 %11 2*23*2%1  '  (4) 5*5 (*6 %() %(10+  , ' 

+ 78 , !  '8 ,  ,,. '

 

    ' 2(5*2*2 9*:

&  ' ' '-7   /0    ,,

      *  ;   *2%1     ''    < 

 ,, <       '

  ',        ',,     =    ,  -      <  ,  ,

 '&    '  <  <    ' <,,<   -  <

<'  95:

&      <      =      ',  = '   9(:

> *)21*2*%   < '




  0,,.  ? ,' 

   '< 

 ' 2(25*2*2 94:

& *3%2*2*% ' =  ,=   ,<

  



   

  



 

               

   

      

 





   

        



  93:

/,,8  + 




    

   

!

"#   , #      

! !  

  

      !

    "

  #$%         &  



       96:

The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 AIR (SC) 4843 laid down the broad principles governing the exercises of powers of quashing of FIR. It was held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised by the High Court to secure the ends of justice, to prevent abuse of any process of law and in cases where in view of the compromise the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceeding will cause oppression and prejudice. [8] Learned State counsel On instructions from ASI Dalvinder Singh submits that after investigation a cancellation report has been filed

3 which is pending with the Court.  91:

The parties are neighbours, the dispute was with regard to a common wall, they have patched up their differences, decided to live peacefully rather than to indulge in litigations. No useful purpose would be served by continuing with the trial. To meet the ends of justice and considering that there are bleak chances of conviction, the FIR mentioned above and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

[10] The petition is allowed.

 0/. 2    % &

'( )*





"  @   ?-

A?



   

( )