Surjit Kumar @Raju v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-42465 of 2019 Date of decision: November 25, 2019 Surjit Kumar @ Raju .. Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .. Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Puneet Pali, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

SURINDER GUPTA, J The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No. 107 dated 26.6.2016 (Annexure P-1), registered for offences punishable under Sections 323/324/341/427/451/506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Division No.5, Districrict Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).

As per case of the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 24.6.2018 at 3.30 p.m. when the petitioner caused injuries to respondents no.2 and 3 in their office.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has since been settled vide compromise, copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure P-2.

DEEPAK KUMAR 2019.11.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-42465-2019 -2Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and other private respondent endorses the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) is quashed.

Learned State counsel has also not disputed compromise (Annexure P-2).

In order to verify the veracity and genuineness of the settlement between the parties, they were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. The trial court has sent its report dated 15.11.2019 stating therein that the compromise has been effected between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence.

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed. Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties to this petition an opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties but also for their families and ultimately the society at large.

For the reasons as discussed above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioner, is quashed. (SURINDER GUPTA) November 25, 2019 JUDGE deepak Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2019.11.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document