Judgment:
CRM-M-43511 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43511 of 2013 Date of decision: 4.2.2014 Jagroop Singh @ Bhola ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr.Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Varun Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Parvej Chugh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** Surinder Gupta J.
(Oral) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.81 dated 12.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) registered for offence under Section 447, 511, 427,506,148, 149 IPC, Police Station Dhaka, District Ludhiana, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-1).As per case of the prosecution, on 12.6.2010 at 7:15 p.m.in the area of Police Station Dhaka, the petitioner along with his companions armed with deadly weapons, criminally trespassed the fields of complainant – respondent No.2 and damaged the crop with Mahindra tractor and also threatened him with dire consequences.
Upon notice, Mr.Varun Sharma, AAG, Punjab has put in Mohan Brij 2014.02.07 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43511 of 2013 -2- appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded.
The trial court has sent its report dated 17.1.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has submitted that in view of the compromise (Annexure P-1).the private respondent (complainant) has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P-2) is quashed .
Learned State counsel has also not disputed the settlement of the dispute by the parties through compromise (Annexure P-1).The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise in order to quash the impugned FIR is that the offence under Section 148 IPC is not compoundable.
In case Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, the Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.even if the offence is not compoundable.
It has been submitted that the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.
Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered Mohan Brij 2014.02.07 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43511 of 2013 -3- 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 opportunity to live in an amicable and peaceful atmosphere which is not only good for the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large.
The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.
As such, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1).along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed.
4.2.2014 (SURINDER GUPTA) Brij JUDGE Mohan Brij 2014.02.07 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh