Hardeep Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-34845 of 2014 .....

Date of decision:20.1.2015 Hardeep Singh and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents ....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.40 dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 427, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2). The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantInder Raj Pathak as the accused-petitioners attacked him with their respective weapons and inflicted injuries. Now with intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between

Cr. Misc. No.M-34845 of 2014 [2] the parties and they have resolved their dispute. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has sent his report dated 29.11.2014 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has sent his report dated 16.1.2015 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Complainant Inder Raj Pathak has stated that compromise has been arrived at with the accused-petitioners voluntarily and without any pressure from any side and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainantrespondent No.2 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 in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 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

Cr. Misc. No.M-34845 of 2014 [3] 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 the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, wherein it has been held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable, this petition is allowed and FIR No.40 dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 427, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

January 20, 2015.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*