← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/13889/2019allowed

Ranjit Singh @ Pappi And ANR. v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

2019-09-30Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Crl. Misc. No. M-13889 of 2019(O&M) Date of decision: September 30, 2019 Ranjit Singh @ Pappi and another ..... PETITIONERS

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENTS (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-14741 of 2019 (O&M) Boota Singh and another ..... PETITIONERS

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-13889-2019 for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-14741-2019 Mr. Avtar Singh Sandhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev Bishoni, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-13889-2019 and for petitioners in CRM-M-14741-2019.

SURINDER GUPTA, J(Oral) This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.').

An FIR No. 241 dated 27.12.2017 was registered at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on

-2the statement of Boota Singh-respondent No.2, (petitioner No. 1 in CRM No. M-14741 of 2019) and cross-version was also recorded vide rapat No. 28 dated 05.02.2018 in same police station on the statement of Ranjit Singh @ Pappi (petitioner No.1 in CRM-M No. 13889 of 2019). Both the parties have sought relief of quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As per case of the prosecution, FIR No. 241 dated 27.12.2017 was registered on the statement of Boota Singh, wherein he has alleged that the petitioners caused him injuries while cross-case was registered on the statement of Ranjit Singh @ Pappi, wherein he has alleged that Boota Singh and Jagroop Singh (petitioners in CRM No. M-14741 of 2019) caused him injuries.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the parties are related to each other and the dispute between them has since been settled due to intervention of relatives vide compromise dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-4). It has also been stated that now both the parties are having no objection if the FIR and DDR, which are cross cases, along with consequential proceedings are quashed.

In order to verify the veracity and genuineness of the settlement between the parties, they were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. The trial court has sent its report dated 09.04.2019 stating therein that the compromise has been effected between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence.

-3Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed. Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties to this petition an opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties but also for their families and ultimately the society at large.

For the reasons as discussed above, both the aforementioned petitions are allowed and FIR No. 241 dated 27.12.2017 and DDR No. 28 dated 05.02.2018 registered at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SURINDER GUPTA) September 30, 2019 JUDGE Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No