✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 29 Feb 2012

CASE NO: CRM No.M-766 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 29 & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG Punjab. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.(ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.12025 of 2012 Criminal Miscellaneous application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. Misc. No.M-766 of 2012 This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.39 dated

28.06.2009, under Section 447, 323, 506, 341, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station, Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 09.01.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear before the learned trial Court and get their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The learned CRM No.M-766 of 2012 2 trial Court was also directed to submit status report in this regard. In compliance of the above order, the injured, namely, Anu Singh, Rajiv Walia, Ranjit Singh and Kamaljit Singh did appear before the learned trial Court and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The status report received from the learned JMIC, Hoshiarpur would reveal that the statements recorded were voluntary and without any coercion or pressure. The compromise dated 11.02.2012, Exhibit C1, was also placed before the learned Court below. The learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Head Constable Kamaljeet Singh, Police Station, Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, admits the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Heard. The offences alleged are under Sections 447, 323, 506, 341, 148 and 149 IPC. Except for Section 149 IPC, all other offences are compoundable. The parties have amicably settled their dispute. Now, there is no ill-will amongst them. They have already got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise before the learned trial Court. The pendency of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.39 dated 28.06.2009, CRM No.M-766 of 2012 3 under Section 447, 323, 506, 341, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station, Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. February 29, 2012 Vgulati (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 148, 149, 323, 341, 447, 506.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 Feb 2012. The bench was NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments