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

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153946
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2014
AppellantKuldip Singh and Another
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. no.m-4222 of 2014 date of decision: july 01, 2014 kuldip singh and another .petitioners versus state of punjab and others .respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice surinder gupta present: mr.amit dhawan, advocate for the petitioners.mr.paramjeet singh madahar, aag, punjab. mr.b.s.pathania, advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. surinder gupta, j the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, 'cr.p.c.') seeking quashing of the fir no.316 dated 7.11.2013 (annexure p-1).registered for offence under sections 323/295/506/34 ipc at police station nakodar, district jalandhar on the basis of the compromise (annexure p-2).as per case of the prosecution, on 6.11.2013 at about 3.00 p.m.the petitioners came to the house of the private respondents and started abusing them. upon notice, mr.paramjeet singh madahar, assistant advocate general, punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1-state and mr.b.s.pathania, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of private respondents. 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 15.2.2014 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 or influence. kumar deepak 2014.07.04 10:07 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl. misc. no.m-4222 of 2014 -2- learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that in view of the compromise (annexure p/2).the private respondents have no objection if the impugned fir (annexure p/1) is quashed. learned state counsel has also not disputed the compromise (annexure p/2).it has been submitted that the dispute in this case was in between the father-in-law and family of his son-in-law. 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 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, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of 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. in view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned fir (annexure p-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed. july 01, 2014 (surinder gupta) deepak judge kumar deepak 2014.07.04 10:07 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

No.M-4222 of 2014 Date of decision: July 01, 2014 Kuldip Singh and another .Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Surinder Gupta Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Paramjeet Singh Madahar, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.B.S.Pathania, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

Surinder Gupta, J The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.316 dated 7.11.2013 (Annexure P-1).registered for offence under Sections 323/295/506/34 IPC at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).As per case of the prosecution, on 6.11.2013 at about 3.00 p.m.the petitioners came to the house of the private respondents and started abusing them.

Upon notice, Mr.Paramjeet Singh Madahar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr.B.S.Pathania, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of private respondents.

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 15.2.2014 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 or influence.

Kumar Deepak 2014.07.04 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Misc.

No.M-4222 of 2014 -2- Learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that in view of the compromise (Annexure P/2).the private respondents have no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) is quashed.

Learned State counsel has also not disputed the compromise (Annexure P/2).It has been submitted that the dispute in this case was in between the father-in-law and family of his son-in-law.

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 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, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of 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.

In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.

July 01, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge Kumar Deepak 2014.07.04 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document