Sukhjeet Singh @ Geetta v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March07, 2024 SUKHJEET SINGH @ GEETTA ........Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. D.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vipul Babuta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1.

By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No.214, dated 12.10.2020 registered under Sections 323, 341, 365, 382, 506, 295-A, 148 &149 of IPC (Section 3(1) a of SC Act was added later on and Sections 295-A, 365 and 382 of IPC were deleted later on) at Police Station City Vairoke District Fazilka along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of the compromise/affidavit dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner, along with some other persons gave beatings to respondents No.2 & 3 and threatened to kill them. Though, the FIR was lodged against 6 persons however, compromise has been effected with the present petitioner only.

3.

This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 20.09.2023 directed the parties to appear before trial Court for getting their statements recorded as regards the veracity of the compromise arrived at between them.

-24.

In pursuance to the order dated 20.09.2023, a report dated 05.10.2023 has been received from the concerned Court, stating that the compromise in the present case is genuine and voluntary and one accused namely Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna has been declared as proclaimed offender.

5.

Thus once, the compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure and respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection as regard quashing of FIR as well as all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same against the petitioner; the dispute purely personal in nature, there does not appear to be any impediment as regards quashing of present FIR, in part, qua the petitioner. Even, in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties, particularly under the circumstances wherein the alleged offences have no societal interest involved, it would be appropriate to render complete quietus to the aforementioned dispute by quashing the FIR in question, qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 6.

The parties having settled their dispute so as to live in peace in future, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. In the light of above developments, no cause remains for the trial Court to invest further time and effort in adjudicating this FIR. The compromise in question is even found to be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4)RCR (Crl.) 543".

-37.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Jayrajsingh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and Another', 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 589 and this Court in 'Joginder Singh & Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another', passed in CRM-M-237392010 decided on 27.04.2011, 'Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another', passed in CRM-M-37395-2016 decided on 16.05.2017 and 'Vimal Kalra & others Vs. State of Punjab & another', passed in CRM-M-20355-2022, decided on 25.07.2022 submits that partial quashing of the FIR is possible on the basis of a compromise. 8.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid report, accompanied by statements of both the parties as well as keeping in mind the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the FIR No.214, dated 12.10.2020 registered under Sections 323, 341, 365, 382, 506, 295-A, 148 &149 (Section 3(1) a of SC Act was added later on and Sections 295-A, 365 and 382 were deleted later on) at Police Station City Vairoke District Fazilka along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. 9.

The aforesaid order shall, however, be subject to payment of Costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Poor Patients' Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of two weeks from today. 07.03.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA) tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No