Ajay Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-23010-2024 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23010-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.05.2024 AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR .......... PETITIONERS

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ..........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sidharth Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vishnu Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners, by way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek quashing of FIR No.11, dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, Police Station Majitha Road, District Amritsar, on the basis of compromise deed dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-2). [2] This Court, while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 08.05.2024, directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the validity of compromise.

[3] In pursuance of above order dated 08.05.2024, a report dated 27.05.2024 has been received from the concerned Court, stating that compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without

CRM-M-23010-2024(O&M) -2any coercion or undue influence. No accused has been declared as proclaimed offender.

[4] Thus once, the compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure and respondent No. 2 has no objection as regards quashing of FIR as well as all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same against the petitioners; there does not appear to be any impediment as regards quashing of present FIR qua the petitioners. Even otherwise, in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties, particularly under the present circumstances wherein the alleged offences have no societal interest involved, it would be appropriate to render complete quietus to the aforementioned dispute by quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

[5] The parties having settled their dispute so as to live in peace in future, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. In the light of above developments, no cause remains for the Trial Court to invest further time and effort in adjudicating this FIR. The compromise in question is even found to be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.) 543.

[6] Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, accompanied by statements of both the parties as well as keeping in mind the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the petition is allowed and the FIR (supra) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

CRM-M-23010-2024(O&M) -3- [7] Accordingly, petition stands allowed, however, subject to providing Hospital Semi Floor Bed to the Civil Hospital, not less than Rs. 10,000/-, within a period of two weeks from today as volunteered by the petitioners against due receipt, issued by the concerned Civil Surgeon, who shall prepare an inventory in this regard for its regular inspection by the Director concerned. A copy of the receipt shall also sent to the Office of Advocate General, Punjab, at the earliest for maintaining records in this regard.

[8] All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 31, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) monika JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No