Pritam Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

 



   
   

  !"#"$%&''

("

)*"$+, $- , (# ''''''

"

"$ (# .#'

*

  /$0 1 $- , (#   '''''''''

#2$- $ # %  34 ' *
.
5*4     ! " ## $  !  " % &'()*  + , -.( /"%
  00000 .
5*46'7 (

      %  -  !  2
   %3*  " '- *"4&/





*-!
5
5
5 65
25  "     &    )!    , -7

+!#) )) !'-)%!** "7  ("!7%7
 8 



-$%)% "))$*  9
  

  

  

    

 

     !" #   

$$#$%#%# %&#  !#       " 

#    

    

'( #)  *   +       (

 +

 ( ( 


 " ,-

./0 1     

      

   +(   

 



  2

 ( (



(

    4  

     #  5  6 7 #) 2-6  '  # 8+   



+

 

 /    55 7#-6    



+





 $
   +

 

5  9    

      (      ( (  :       

(


 

  5  9         +(   

+

  .  

 

  

: 

( 

;/  (+



2 <  2  (

= > $<   ( (  #6

 2  :    2 

 

 = <  



6

 2 



= %
             (

 

6   3

  :( 26 (9  (      

?

&%--!"  % (-(7 (3 :-!)* ) #)  +%-3*"  -1 ) %" %%-! ()$ @It is submitted that from the statement of the parties, it appears that compromise is genuine and without any pressure, coercion and undue influence. It is further submitted that as per version of 10 there are total five

  accused persons in the present case (three accused persons are by name and two are unknown) and no accused person has been declared as proclaimed offender and in this FIR there is only one victim/complainant namely Balwinder Singh aged about 62 years son of Sampuran Singh resident of Village Kohali, PO Ladha Munda, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspun. It is further submitted that no other FIR is pending against accused persons. This is for your kind perusal please.

Submitted please, Yours faithfully Mohinder Partap Singh Libra.

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Batala UID No. PB0683"

4.

Along with the status report, the statement of Balwinder Singh, respondent no. 2-complainant, Satnam Singh, respondent no. 3 and of Pritam Singh, petitioner no. 1, Manjit Kuar, petitioner no. 2, Jashandeep Singh, petitioner no. 3 as well as the IO, ASI Sukhraj Singh, in support of the compromise has been attached.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, there are five persons out of which, three have filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR and thus, the present case is a case of partial compromise and has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana vs. State of Gujarat and another reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend that even in a case of partial compromise, FIR can be quashed qua the accused with whom the compromise has been effected.

6

%-)" %$-) $ 7" !!%  (! ! $     7 (!7%7 3  (.!! 4& '-'- 1 3  "-   !7%7

 (*$ *-  )-)3$ -3 !!--")-!

;!-)" % -(7  %  (!)%!)7"";!-) "  %-!   "!!! 2 -   )!-)" %

%- ")

"%-* %-(7(3 ))-

 -"  7 (7!()3)($ % !7%)! 7 () %  !) %! -") !-  ".-! !7)%!* ('- 

% 4-))#!

.-*7" -95/8:"$- ( *"$+, $- , (#
.#
*

  /$0 1
79 7(")"$ 89;

 ) <* - %$-!2
))$ !7%-*"!7%-()""!'- %!- $  <* -" %  7'-%   (-" %!")$ $!- ".-! %$"'- *!"77)%-)

<=()  %>- !"9"

$*"$+,
.#
*

/$0 1  $-  $ , (
  79   7(")"$ 89  ;   ) (  !- ".-!%  (- "%!"-  %$!(-(3 -'-

!7)  %!*    $ !

   !7%7    (  ""!  1 )   %  "  %    "       .-*7    %-!



()$ @

  

  ( ( + 6



+ (( ;   :

  A       (     

 (   .

  

8 

    

 (  :6 (    

 (    

  

$

  

  :

:  : 

   2 (  

+   +.  :        :6BC,0   

8  ,0 6 +

   

 2  DDD///DDD?

 & $"$  (!- (  % ))$4&/





*-!
5
5
5 65
25 " &)!, -7 )! +!#)  )) -('-%!* 7* "7 ('- '- % )3 *

)1 (&6 7.
5*49     ?

 %*5 @ ?

 %() /