Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 May, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc.No. M-6278 of 2012 &
Crl. Misc.No. M-6116 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. Crl. Misc.No. M- 6278 of 2012
Ranjit Singh and others ......Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
2. Crl. Misc.No. M- 6116 of 2012
Harchand Singh and others ......Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
Date of decision : 03.05.2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M- 6278 of 2012 &
for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crl. Misc.No. M- 6116 of
2012
Ms. Gagan Mohni, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. K.B.S.Mann, Advocate,
for the petitioners in Crl. Misc.No. M- 6116 of 2012 &
for respondent No. 2 in Crl. Misc.No. M- 6278 of 2012
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
By this common order, Crl. Misc.No. M- 6278 of 2011 & Crl. Misc. No. M- 6116 of 2012 shall be decided together wherein prayer is for quashing of FIR No.259 dated 12.10.2004 registered under Sections 452, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and cross case in FIR No. 259 dated 12.10.2004 registered under Sections 326/324/323/34 Crl. Misc.No. M-6278 of 2012 & Crl. Misc.No. M-6116 of 2012 -2- IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and the proceedings consequential thereto are being sought on the basis of compromise dated 25.2.2012 (Annexure P2).
The F.I.R and cross case in question were got registered by the parties herein against each other. As per the allegations in the FIR as well as cross-case, a scuffle took place on account of turn of water between the parties, which led registration of the impugned FIR as well as cross-case. In this scuffle, both the parties suffered injuries and got registered the cases against each other.
After presentation of challan at the stage of recording prosecution evidence, the parties have entered into a compromise, which is evident from Annexure P-2.
In compliance with the order dated 7.3.2012 passed in CRM No.M-6278 of 2012 and order dated 29.2.2012, status reports have been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout. As per the status report in CRM No.6116 of 2012, the complainant Nachhattar Singh and one injured Sukhdev Singh have already expired during the trial of the case. The statements of other eye witnesses have been recorded admitting the factum of arriving into compromise. According to status report in CRM No.M-6278 of 2012, the statements of complainant/injured Harchand Singh, Malook Singh and joint statements of accused Ranjit Singh, Gurdas Singh, Lal Singh, Kuldip Singh and Iqbal Singh have been recorded to the effect that cross case has been registered against both the partes and now, with the intervention of Panchayat and other respectables they have Crl. Misc.No. M-6278 of 2012 & Crl. Misc.No. M-6116 of 2012 -3- arrived into compromise with their free will and without any pressure.
Learned State counsel does not controvert the said facts. Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of F.I.R and cross-case in the interest of justice.
Consequently, in view of the status reports and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra), the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Accordingly, FIR No.259 dated 12.10.2004 registered under Sections 452, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and cross case in FIR No. 259 dated 12.10.2004 registered under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and the proceedings consequential thereto are quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petitions stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 3.5.2012 mks