Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh @ Sattu And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:052712
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-13730-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 19.04.2024
Satnam Singh @ Sattu and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishvajeet Singh Virk, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Nishant Sehgal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioners-Satnam Singh @ Sattu, Amarjot @ Babbu, Happy Monga, Sunil @ Jonty, Sehajdeep Singh @ Sehajpreet Singh and Manoj Kumar @ Golu @ Gopal has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR No.242, dated 24.10.2020, Police Station City-1, Abohar, District Fazilka, under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 201, 148, 149 IPC (Section 201 IPC added vide G.D.No.34 dated 12.1.2021 and Section 326 IPC added vide rapat No.17, dated 21.2.2021), and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties.
2. The relevant extract from order dated 18.3.2024 passed at the time of issuance of notice of motion is reproduced herein under:- MOHAN SINGH 2024.04.19 04:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-13730-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:052712 "Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. There is no opinion of the doctor declaring any injury on the person of the complainant as dangerous of life. Moreover, injuries are on non-vital parts of the body and the petitioners and the complainant are neighbours and facts of the case satisfy the parameters of ratio of law as laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others' 2019 (5) SCC 688, therefore, the FIR (supra) can be quashed on the basis of compromise."
3. Vide order dated 18.03.2024, the parties had been directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate so as to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise.
4. Report of learned Additional Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fazilka, has been received, wherein it has been reported that the statement of petitioners/accused Satnam Singh @ Sattu, Amarjot @ Babbu, Happy Monga, Sunil @ Jonty, Sehajdeep Singh @ Sehajpreet Singh, Manoj Kumar @ Golu @ Gopal and complainant/victim Jagwinder Singh, Rajneet Kaur, Arshdeep Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur and Asha Rani have been recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter amongst themselves.
5. Complainant/victim Jagwinder Singh, Rajneet Kaur, Arshdeep Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur and Asha Rani in their statement had stated that they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
6. The learned Additional Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fazilka, has specifically opined that the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence.
MOHAN SINGH 2024.04.19 04:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13730-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:052712
7. In view of the aforesaid compromise and bearing in mind the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.242, dated 24.10.2020, Police Station City-1, Abohar, District Fazilka, under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 201, 148, 149 IPC (Section 201 IPC added vide G.D.No.34 dated 12.1.2021 and Section 326 IPC added vide rapat No.17, dated 21.2.2021) and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
19.04.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
MOHAN SINGH
2024.04.19 04:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document