Simranjeet Singh And Gurjot Singh vs State And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1268 j&K

                                                                      Sr. No.49


        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                               CRMC No.162/2019
                                               CrlM No.409/2019


Simranjeet Singh and Gurjot Singh                                 .....Petitioner(s)

                        Through: Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate

                   Vs

State and others                                               ..... Respondent(s)

                        Through: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG.


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

The challan arising out of FIR No.268/2017 registered with Police Station

H I Gagainst Bahu Fort, Jammu stands presented H petitioner No.1 under sections 341 OF JAMMU & COUR & 307/34 RPC and against petitioner T under Sections 307/325/34 RPC & No.2 KASHMIR AND nd L AofD2 AAdditional 4/25 Arms Act, before the Court KH Sessions Judge, Jammu.

Through the medium of present petition, the petitioners-accused in the

challan, seek quashment of said FIR and challan on the ground that the

petitioners and the private respondents-complainant aggrieved in the challan,

have entered into compromise as they have settled their dispute amicably. It is

submitted that the petitioners are of young age and in case the proceedings are

allowed to continue they shall suffer in their career and life. Compromise Deed

executed between the parties is placed on the file of the present petition.

Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG, appearing for respondent-State, has

submitted that the challan has been produced for the offences, which are non

compoundable. The petitioners have committed offence against the society and

therefore, no leverage can be granted to the petitioners in the present petition.

The respondent-Amit Sodhi during the course of occurrence is alleged to

have suffered injury in consequence to 'Kirch' attack engineered by the accused.

Mr. Jagpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that

though some of the offences, in which the challan has been filed, are non

compoundable, however, the court in exercise of inherent powers can grant the

relief in the petition. He has also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Criminal Appeal No.1489 and 1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021 in case

titled Ramgopal and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the

offence under Section 326 IPC was compounded in view of the fact that the

parties therein had settled their dispute and though the petitioners therein had

been convicted by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court and the High HIGH O FtheJ offence.

              Court also refused to compound     AMMU &
                                                 COURT
                                            KASHMIR AND

Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence relates to the year 2017, the LADAKH parties have settled the matter amicably and also the age of the petitioners, the

Court exercises inherent jurisdiction and compounds the non bailable offences

as mentioned in the challan against the petitioners. Resultantly, the petition is

allowed and FIR and consequently challan pending before the Court of 2nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, stand quashed.

( Puneet Gupta ) Judge Jammu 07.10.2021 *Narinder

NARINDER KUMAR SHARMA 2021.10.08 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document