Pawan Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Another
!
"#$ '$()*)%+
, ,
"-"+ ./0"1 ,,,,,, $#)#)%+$1 2$1*/* /+4"5 "+%#6$1
,,,,,, $*7%+'$+#*
8 9 ,
3 .
!
"#
$! &&&& .
:
,
1"; ' ( )*+
, - , ./$ % 0 1 0 02 , )0 203'/+ "
4 % , 4 # $
##5 6 32 37 8 90 0
( ,( : - , ./$ - ## 5 6 37 % #
;# ! 23"
#
, $!
% +# # , < #
### <
=4
, # ( 90 ,
, # ( , ## > # ( , ### # /
-=4
,
6 > +
( , 57 ( # ,
?
57 (
+ @ /, (# ?
57 ( ( # , ?
57
= , =?
57
#
( , , ( ##?
57
# / , 8( , % 575757 57 $ , 4 " , 6 , ! 2 0 09 2C 0 09# /+# (
+
( :66 66 7 # /8 ./$ 7 # /8
+
7 # /8 # 7 > , ( ,
7 , # ## ,
(
) > here are four accused persons namely Pawan Kumar, Jasbir Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Parminder Singh. However, the compromise has only been effected with accused-petitioner Pawan Kumar.
"# $! # ,## ! ./$
, - , - Similarly learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise. /
, , * ,!
,# 6+ )"+ 3)+<6 2*, /+4"5 "+%#6$1:
3 :
"'6="
1"'$*6 2*, 9">0) "1"="+ %#6$1*
3 ?:
./;-)+'$1 3)+<6 %#6$1* @*, /+4"5 "+%#6$1:
1)0)+";
"0 %7";
"+%#6$1 2*, "'6="
1"'$*6:
,,,
1)0)+";
1)0)+";
77$";
%,
'$()'$'
%+
#6 3$7#$05$1:
( #,# 6+
+
57 ( =)*+ ( +
" 90 + 57 ;(( (,
57 > , ( 6 , ( - , , D , ## #
(( # , #
## ,
# # #
57 > ( 6
, # #
#
57 " )*+
;,+ !
(
/ ,
;,+ 6 ;,+ (
- ./$ 90# ./$ # ;, +
!
( !
= =
( 57 "
6 ;,+ (
#
, =,#
,
"
6
( #
5,7 E - , ./$ 3# (
;,+ - ( ( , ( # , # ## > , ( #
+ 6 !
=)*+ - ./$ 3 57 > #
( 6
9">0) "1"="+8* 5 7 57 >
57 > ## 57 ##
57 +# = # ## ( 10.
Since the parties are ad idem that the compromise/settlement has to be read strictly inter se between the parties to the present petition and the complainant wants to pursue prosecution of rest of accused, namely, Jasbir Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Parminder Singh and it is only Pawan Kumar who has approached this Court by way of present petition, the present petition is being entertained and allowed qua Pawan Kumar only.
11.
The question raised by State counsel as to whether the FIR can be quashed in part or not already stands answered by Apex Court in
?
'Lovely Salhotra and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' reported as (2018) 12 SCC 391, wherein it was observed as under:- "xx xx xx We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants - herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie."
12.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. ./$ % 0 1 0 02, )0 203'/+ "
4 % , 4
# $
, , #, are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.
13.
" # ,#
.
, ,
4 E ,= F E $
%