Harpreet Singh v. State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:26.10.2021 Harpreet Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ......... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Ullas Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Virenjeet Singh Mahal, Addl. P.P., U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate, for respondents no.3 to 7.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
 

  

 

 





   

 !



"





#$  %&'() 

  *  *"   

    +  ,   ,  )"  -."

  //

  

  , *

&+"

  //  







     0  1      

   $   

   

/2  



   

// 

  4 3 +  + (  "



 5  / 

-267#/8

 ,  6 "      4   + +  "-." "    

         "  

 6  5 8  , "  4 

"         9     

  

         



 

 48  )   &

/  



"    "

 



    :&$6 

  ;*   



/  .

 :&$6 

     

  



  

//





 

 

 # 

    "

    

  "



 

 .

   





    

 "    

   

   

//   $ "

  /  



%&'

 $

  $

 4<



 

   

   

 



 

/ " #   

 "

 



 = Pursuant thereto, a report of the learned JMIC, Chandigarh, dated 05.10.2021, has been received, stating to the effect that the complainant in the FIR, i.e. respondent no.3, Deepu, appeared before that court and recorded his statement to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner of his own free will, with him also having filed an affidavit before that court to that effect. His identity was also duly established by that court. Similarly, statements of injured persons, i.e. Santosh wife of Sandeep,

-3Darshan son of Khela Ram, Sneha daughter of Ajay and Kalyama wife of Priya Swami (respondents no.4 to 7) were also recorded, essentially to the same effect, with their identities also having been established by that court. The statement of the investigating officer was also recorded before that court to the effect that other than the aforesaid persons and the accused (petitioner herein) there is no other person involved in the occurrence (whose consent would be required for quashing the FIR, if this court comes to such conclusion).

As per the assessment of that court, the compromise arrived at between the parties was without any pressure or undue influence. Learned Addl. P.P., U.T. Chandigarh also submits that, as per his instructions, there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner. Counsel for the complainant does not deny that the compromise between the parties still subsists.

That being so, looking at the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties,



 %&'5()"

 *  *" 

+ , , )"-.

  //

 

 , *

&+"



 / 

/"

$

 October 26, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No