Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 January, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Crl. Misc. No. M-3600 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-3600 of 2012
Date of Decision : January 09, 2013
Ajit Singh and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. B. S. Thind, Advocate
for Mr. D. S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Nikhil, AAG, Punjab
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondents no. 2 to 7.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Ajit Singh and others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.), for quashing cross- case (Annexure P-2), registered on the statement of respondent no.2 Chand Singh, in FIR No. 50 dated 15.05.2009, under Sections 458, 323, 324, 325, 427, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC), Section 459 IPC Crl. Misc. No. M-3600 of 2012 2 added later on, registered at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga, which was lodged by the side of the petitioners, in view of compromise dated 19.01.2012 (Annexure P-3), effected between the parties.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Pursuant to order of this Court, report has been received from trial court that the parties have voluntarily effected compromise. Statements of parties have also been recorded by the trial court and have been received along with report.
Counsel for respondents no.2 to 7 also states that parties have effected compromise, and therefore, respondents no.2 to 7 have no objection if the FIR is quashed.
In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225.
In the instant case, there are cross-cases between the parties regarding the same occurrence. Both the cross-cases have been compromised. The parties belong to the same village. Consequently, it would be in the interest of both the parties if the impugned FIR is quashed as the parties would be able to live in peace and harmony in the village. It Crl. Misc. No. M-3600 of 2012 3 is, therefore, a fit case for quashing the cross-case, in view of compromise between the parties.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and impugned cross case (Annexure P-2), registered on the statement of respondent no.2 Chand Singh, in FIR No. 50 dated 15.05.2009, under Sections 458, 323, 324, 325, 427, 148, 149 IPC (Section 459 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga, which was lodged by the side of the petitioners, is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
January 09, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE