Sunil @ Mongal And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63431-2023 Date of decision: September 16th, 2024 Sunil @ Mongal and others .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 01.03.2021 under Sections 307, 323, 386, 447, 452, 506, 511, 34 of the IPC (Sections 325, 327, 109 of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station City Rewari, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-2). 2.

Vide order dated 16.07.2024 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 14.08.2024 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at, between them.

3.

Report has since been received from learned trial Court, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, wherein, the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties stands verified and confirmed. As per the report compromise has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will and the private respondents have also made statement to the effect that they would PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.09.17 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-63431-2023 -2have no objection if the FIR qua the accused-petitioners is quashed. 4.

The trial Court has annexed the copies of the statements of the parties, along with its report.

5.

Learned State counsel has not disputed that none of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners was opined to be dangerous to life; except for one injury, which was a fracture on the right knee of one of the injured and one injury on the left leg of respondent No.3, all other injuries were simple in nature. Learned State counsel further submits that there are no other accused other than the petitioners and private respondents are the only aggrieved persons in the FIR in question.

6.

In view of the report of the learned trial Court, and the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it, are quashed. 7.

Needless to say the parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. September 16th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.09.17 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh