Amarjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1072082
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-02-2013
AppellantAmarjit Singh and Others
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm-m no.18344 o”1. in the punjab & haryana high court at chandigarh crm-m no.18344 of 2013 date of decision :02. 09.2013 amarjit singh and others ..petitioners versus state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal 1 whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”2. to be referred to the reporter or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.liaqat ali, advocate for the petitioners.rekha mittal, j.(oral) mr.amarinder singh klar, aag, punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. nobody is present on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of fir no.13 dated 10.03.2013, under sections 336, 188, 34 ipc registered at police station koom kalan, district ludhiana city on the basis of compromise effected between the parties vide annexure p2. the parties were directed to appear before the trial court / judicial magistrate ist class, ludhiana on 09.07.2013 to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise. a report has been submitted by the trial court / judicial magistrate ist class, ludhiana, wherein it has been reported that the davinder kumar 2013.09.04 17:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.18344 o”2. statements of the petitioners and complainant have been recorded and the statements made by the parties in the court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise with an intention to live in peace and harmony. counsel for the state has not disputed the correctness of assertions of the petitioners that the matter has been settled by way of compromise between the parties. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. there is nothing on record to doubt the correctness of the compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony. the present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise in view of the decision of hon'ble the supreme court of india in gian singh v. state of punjab and another, 2012(4) r.c.r.(criminal) 543. in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and fir no.13 dated 10.03.2013, under sections 336, 188, 34 ipc registered at police station koom kalan, district ludhiana city and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.(rekha mittal) judge september 02, 2013. davinder kumar
Judgment:

CRM-M No.18344 o”

1. IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.18344 of 2013 Date of decision :

02. 09.2013 Amarjit Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL 1

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.”

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

Present: Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioneRs.REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) Mr.Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.

Nobody is present on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service.

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.13 dated 10.03.2013, under Sections 336, 188, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana City on the basis of compromise effected between the parties vide Annexure P2.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court / Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on 09.07.2013 to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise.

A report has been submitted by the trial Court / Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, wherein it has been reported that the Davinder Kumar 2013.09.04 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18344 o”

2. statements of the petitioners and complainant have been recorded and the statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise with an intention to live in peace and harmony.

Counsel for the State has not disputed the correctness of assertions of the petitioners that the matter has been settled by way of compromise between the parties.

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

There is nothing on record to doubt the correctness of the compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony.

The present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and FIR No.13 dated 10.03.2013, under Sections 336, 188, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana City and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioneRs.(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE September 02, 2013.

Davinder Kumar