Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Singh @ Raju vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 March, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No.M-8444 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-8444 of 2012
Date of decision:29.3.2012
Harinder Singh @ Raju
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.T.P.S.Makkar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Gagan Mohni, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Varinder Pal Singh, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No.29 dated 19.5.2009 registered under Sections 304-A/279/337/338/427 of IPC at Police Station, Bareta, District Mansa and the proceedings consequential thereto are being sought on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) dated 9.3.2012.
The impugned FIR was registered on account of accidental death of Gurjant Singh alleged to be caused by the petitioner.
After investigation, the challan was presented and charges were framed. The petitioner, who was driver of the offending vehicle, has compromised the matter, which is evident from annexure P-2.
Learned counsel submits that two claim petitions have been filed. One claim petition was filed for grant of compensation on CRM No.M-8444 of 2012 2 account of death of Gurjant Singh and another was for the compensation on account of the injury suffered by the minor Shamandeep Singh. He further submits that in the first claim petition, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,36,000/- and the second petition was withdrawn by respondent No.2 on account of settlement. He placed on record certified copy of the statement of petitioner as well as statement of complainant. Besides this, he also placed on record copy of order passed by learned Tribunal, which is taken on record as Annexure A-1. He submits that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- towards compensation to the claimant/respondent No.2 and resultantly, the matter has been compromised between the parties.
Counsel for respondent No.2 puts in appearance and does not dispute the contents of compromise deed, Annexure P-2. The original compromise-deed is taken on record as Annexure A-2. He submits that private respondents have no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
Counsel for State does not controvert the said facts. Heard.
As per the statement of respondent No.2, (wife of the deceased) has received a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and does not want to proceed further.
As per the order of learned Tribunal, the claimant/respondent No.2 has received the said amount from the petitioner and she withdrew the claim petition filed on behalf of minor/injured.
CRM No.M-8444 of 2012 3
After going through the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is the first offender and no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.29 dated 19.5.2009 registered under Sections 304-A/279/337/338/427 of IPC at Police Station, Bareta, District Mansa and the proceedings consequential thereto are quashed qua the petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
29.3.2012 (RITU BAHRI) mks JUDGE