✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 27 Feb 2024

02.2024 Tarsem Singh @ Soni & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

CRM-M No. 2543 of 2024DEEPAK GUPTA2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present : Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ankit Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) [1] Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of F.I.R. No.70, dated 08.08.2020, registered under Sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 34 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Mattewal, District Amritsar, Rural, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-2). [2] This Court vide order dated 18.01.2024 had directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send the report qua the genuineness of the compromise. [3] Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar, and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 21.02.2024 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.02.27 05:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2543-2024 -2- [4] Statement of Respondent No.2-complainant namely, Sandeep Kaur, with regard to compromise was recorded before learned Magistrate on 06.02.2024. [5] Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. [6] In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R. following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.70, dated 08.08.2020, registered under Sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 34 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Mattewal, District Amritsar, Rural, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise qua petitioners, are hereby quashed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

27.02.2024 ‘Rajneesh' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.02.27 05:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 323, 324, 341, 427.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 Feb 2024. The bench was DEEPAK GUPTA.

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 case no. CRM-M No. 2543 of 2024). ← Search more judgments