Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagsir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 April, 2016
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-32431 of 2015
.....
Date of decision:7.4.2016
Jagsir Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate for Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.69 dated 8.11.2014 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 432, 427 and 506 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 at Police Station Malout Sadar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/affidavits (Annexures-P.2 to P.4).
The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant- Beant Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioner had damaged the government water course with his tractor and when the complainant and his 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2016 00:35:26 ::: Cr. Misc. No.M-32431 of 2015 [2] brother tired to stop him, he by taking out `Kappa' from his tractor threatened them to kill. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.
Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout has sent his report dated 17.11.2015 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.
In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2016 00:35:27 ::: Cr. Misc. No.M-32431 of 2015 [3] prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.
Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.69 dated 8.11.2014 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 432, 427 and 506 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 at Police Station Malout Sadar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
April 7, 2016. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2016 00:35:27 :::