Alisher And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-9104 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:30.8.2016 Alisher and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents ....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.257 dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 IPC (however, in the FIR Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 IPC have been mentioned) at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2). The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantNasiru Deen on the allegations that the accused-petitioners attacked him and respondent No.3 and inflicted injuries. Now with the intervention of

Cr. Misc. No.M-9104 of 2016 [2] respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences. 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, Naraingarh has sent his report dated 26.4.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondents No.2 and 3 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, Haryana and learned counsel for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 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

Cr. Misc. No.M-9104 of 2016 [3] 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, this petition is allowed and FIR No.257 dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 IPC (however, in the FIR Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 IPC have been mentioned) at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. August 30, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No