Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. Ranjit Singh and Others

Ranjit Singh and Others vs Ranjit Singh and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 22, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1067088

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjit Singh and Others

Respondent

Ranjit Singh and Others

Excerpt

.....are directed to be present before the trial court on 22.8.2012 or any other date convenient to the court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. the trial court is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to knot its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any crm-m no.15943 of 2012 (o&m) ::2:: manner. the trial court is directed to send a report along with statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and also intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing. the trial court is also directed to intimate with regard to pendency of any p.o proceedings against the parties.” pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 11.9.2012 from the principal magistrate, juvenile justice board, tarn taran has been received attesting to the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties. counsel for the parties have also stated that in fact the matter has been compromised. in view of the facts, noticed herein above, it is apparent that both the parties have arrived at a bona fide settlement. i am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, as also in the interest of parties, if the present fir and all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom are quashed. it is a fit case where this court should exercise jurisdiction, under section 482 of the cr.p.c to put an end to these futile criminal proceedings. even otherwise, a full bench of this court has issued broad guidelines in kulwinder singh and others vs state of punjab and another, 2007(3) rcr (crl) 1052, for quashing of the fir where parties enter into compromise. consequently, the present petition is allowed and fir no.41, dated 12.5.2007, registered under sections 452, 323, 34 of the ipc, at police station verowal, district tarn taran, and all subsequent proceedings, emanating.....

Full Judgment

CRM-M No.15943 of 2012 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.15943 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : January 22, 2013 Ranjit Singh and otheRs......Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and another, .....Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.K.S.Pannu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr.Ramesh K Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*** 1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is for quashing of FIR No.41, dated 12.5.2007, registered under Sections 452, 323, 34 of the IPC, at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran, on the basis of a compromise, arrived at between the parties.

On 6.8.2012, the following order was passed :- “ Since it is a petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, let the statements of the parties be recorded before the trial Court.

Parties are directed to be present before the trial Court on 22.8.2012 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise.

The trial Court is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to knot its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any CRM-M No.15943 of 2012 (O&M) ::2:: manner.

The trial Court is directed to send a report along with statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and also intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing.

The trial Court is also directed to intimate with regard to pendency of any P.O proceedings against the parties.”

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 11.9.2012 from the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Tarn Taran has been received attesting to the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

Counsel for the parties have also stated that in fact the matter has been compromised.

In view of the facts, noticed herein above, it is apparent that both the parties have arrived at a bona fide settlement.

I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, as also in the interest of parties, if the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom are quashed.

It is a fit case where this Court should exercise jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to put an end to these futile criminal proceedings.

Even otherwise, a Full Bench of this Court has issued broad guidelines in Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl) 1052, for quashing of the FIR where parties enter into compromise.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.41, dated 12.5.2007, registered under Sections 452, 323, 34 of the IPC, at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran, and all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, are quashed.

( AJAY TEWARI ) January 22, 2013.

JUDGE `kk' CRM-M No.15943 of 2012 (O&M) ::3::

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial