Rinkel And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.227 Date of Decision: 07.02.2022 Rinkel and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

(Heard through Video-Conferencing) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Naveen Upadhyay, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. C.L. Pawar, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Ashish Bakshi, Advocate appearing as proxy counsel for Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for seeking the quashing of the FIR bearing No.0089 dated 09.06.2019 registered at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana, under Sections 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, while averring that the parties have arrived at a compromise (Annexure P-2) qua their dispute leading to the registration of the said FIR.

Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the allegations, as levelled by the complainant named Sukhi in the subject FIR, are that

-2- .....

while she was talking to a person named Sindhu near Barote Pass Park, both the petitioners came there and slapped her and they also caused injuries to her by giving kick blows etc.

Vide the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 23.11.2021 for recording their statements in respect of the compromise/ settlement. In compliance of the said order, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, recorded their (parties') statements and has submitted his report (which has already been placed on the file) mentioning therein that the compromise appears to be a genuine one and having been arrived at between the parties out of their free will and without any pressure or coercion and there is nothing on the record to doubt the genuineness of the same and that there are only two accused, i.e. the present petitioners and one complainant/aggrieved person, i.e. respondent No.

2 in this case and the petitioners have never been declared proclaimed offenders in any criminal case and no other criminal case is pending against them. The statements of both the parties as well as of the Investigating Officer named Sukhjit Singh ASI, have also been annexed with the said report. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in the present petition and have also perused the file thoroughly. The said compromise has been effected to put the dispute between the parties at rest for all the times to come and the same would promote peaceful, harmonious and cordial relations between them.

-3- .....

being so, there are bleak chances of the conviction of the petitioners and in these circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings in the case, arising out of the said FIR, would be an exercise in futility. Keeping in view the above-discussed facts and circumstances as well as the observations as made by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another (2012) 4 RCR (Criminal) 543, the FIR bearing No.0089 dated 09.06.2019 registered at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana, under Sections 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC is hereby quashed.

The petition in hand stands allowed accordingly. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) 07.02.2022 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No