Punjab-Haryana High Court
Partap Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 August, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 26486 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 6, 2012
Partap Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. R.S. Pahania, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J
1. This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 35, dated 6.6.2011, under Sections 452, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Old Shalley, District Gurdaspur, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise. A further prayer has also been made for quashing DDR No. 11, dated 17.6.2011, under Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Old Shalley, District Gurdaspur, which has been lodged by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and treated as a cross case.
2. Vide order dated 22.2.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 2.3.2012 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, for getting their respective CRM-M No. 26486 of 2011 (O&M) 2 statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to submit its report on or before the date fixed by this Court.
3. In compliance of the above, the complainant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ranjit Singh and Balwinder Singh; and the injured-respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Soma Devi and Veena Devi as well as accused-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Partap Singh and Malkiat Singh, appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, and got recorded their statements to the effect that they had effected a compromise with each other. The complainants and the injured-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 further stated that they had no objection if the compromise was accepted and the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.
4. Perusal of the report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, reveals that a genuine compromise has been effected between the affected parties.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 admits the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Gurdeep Singh of Police Station, Old Shalley, District Gurdaspur, also admits the factum of the compromise. After perusing the statements suffered by the affected parties as also the report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. learned counsel for the State has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
7. Heard.
CRM-M No. 26486 of 2011 (O&M) 3
8. It is a case of version and cross-version. The occurrence between the affected parties had taken place on account of construction of a wall nearby their houses. Due to interference of respectable and the elder people of the society, they have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise. By virtue of the order dated 22.2.2012, passed by this Court, the complainant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3, injured-respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as well as the accused-petitioners appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, and got recorded their statements with regard to the compromise. The report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, has also been received wherein it has been mentioned that the compromise effected between the parties was genuine. Therefore, continuation of the trial arising out of the impugned FIR would be sheer abuse of the process of law since chances of conviction are bleak.
9. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and the law laid down by a 5-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 (P&H), this petition is accepted and FIR No. 35, dated 6.6.2011, under Sections 452, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC, and DDR No. 11, dated 17.6.2011, under Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Old Shalley, District Gurdaspur, as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE August 6, 2012 PKapoor