Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkiat Singh @ Chhinda And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 August, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No. M-15965 of 2009
Date of decision : 06.08.2009
Malkiat Singh @ Chhinda and others
....Petitioners
V/s
State of Punjab and others
....Respondent
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate
for respondent No. 4.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 126 dated 25.07.2005 registered under Sections 323/324/148/149 IPC (Annexure P-1/T) at Police Station Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 have pointed out that both the parties are present in Court today. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 in the Court today and the same is taken on record as Mark 'A'. In the affidavits it has been stated that petitioners and respondent No. 4 have compromised the matter. Respondent No. 4 has further stated that he has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State submits that in case there is Crl. Misc No. M-15965 of 2009 -2- compromise arrived at between the parties, the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question.
The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.), 1052.
Resultantly the present petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
06.08.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE