Jodha Singh & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ORS

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

(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-33695 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:1.6.2017 Jodha Singh and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ....

(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-11431 of 2016 .....

Balwinder Singh and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. J.S. Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.M-33695 of 2016 and for respondents No.2 and 3 in Cr. Misc. No.M-11431 of 2016.

Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.M-11431 of 2016 and for respondents No.2 and 3 in Cr. Misc. No.M-33695 of 2016.

Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal miscellaneous petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-33695 of 2016 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.1 dated 2.1.2012

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-33695 of 2016 etc.

[2] registered for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 341 and 506 IPC at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur and Criminal Misc. No.M11431 of 2016 filed for quashing of cross-case Final Report in FIR No.1 dated 2.1.2012 registered under Sections 341, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 458 IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

The FIR and the cross-case were got registered against each other by the petitioners of both the petitions as dispute arose as a result of fight between the parties in which injuries were received by both the parties. This is a case of version and cross-version. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have effected a compromise.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam (Sangrur) has sent her report dated 19.5.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainants 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 and the cross-case in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-33695 of 2016 etc.

[3] Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab 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, these petitions are allowed and FIR No.1 dated 2.1.2012 registered for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 341 and 506 IPC at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur and cross-case Final Report in FIR No.1 dated 2.1.2012 registered under Sections 341, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 458 IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

June 1, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No