Skip to content


Present: Mr. G.K.Saini Advocate Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Present: Mr. G.K.Saini Advocate

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt:


.....petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (in short – cr.p.c.) for quashing fir no.174 dated 24.11.2008 (annexure p-1).under sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 of the indian penal code (in short ipc).registered at police station julka, district patiala, in view of compromise (annexure p-2) effected with respondent no.2 – complainant, who has also furnished affidavit (annexure p-3) regarding the compromise. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant, on instructions from respondent no.2, said to be present in person in the court, stated that parties have effected compromise (annexure p-2).for which respondent no.2 has also furnished affidavit (annexure p-3).and therefore, respondent no.2 has no objection if the impugned fir is quashed. crm not m-10143 of 2013 -2- in appropriate cases, fir can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under section 482 cr.p.c., even if the offences are not compoundable. it was so held by full bench of this court in case of kulwinder singh versus state of punjab reported as 2007 (3) law herald (punjab and haryana) 2225. in the.....

Judgment:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-10143 of 2013 Date of decision:

29. 05.2013 Gurbhej Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr.G.K.Saini, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Roopam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr.Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***** L.N.MITTAL, J.(Oral) Accused Gurbhej Singh and six others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.174 dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure P-1).under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC).registered at Police Station Julka, District Patiala, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent No.2 – complainant, who has also furnished affidavit (Annexure P-3) regarding the compromise.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant, on instructions from respondent no.2, said to be present in person in the Court, stated that parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-2).for which respondent no.2 has also furnished affidavit (Annexure P-3).and therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

CRM not M-10143 of 2013 -2- In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable.

It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225.

In the instant case, parties belong to the same village.

They have effected compromise with intervention of friends, relatives and respectables.

Respondent No.2 suffered only simple injuries in the occurrence.

It is, accordingly, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed so that the parties may live in peace and harmony.

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

29.05.2013 (L.N.Mittal) sonia Judge


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //