Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 22 February, 2021
CRM-M-30786-2019 (O&M) -1-
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-4326-2021 in/and
CRM-M-30786-2019
Date of Decision: 22.02.2021
****
Karnail Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate,
for the applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. Kamlesh Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
****
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-4326-2021
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the prayer for
preponement is allowed and the date of hearing in the main case is
preponed to today itself.
Application stands disposed off.
CRM-M-30786-2019
In this petition, the petitioners, who are the accused persons in
F.I.R. No. 166, dated 28.04.2012, under Sections 323, 324, 285, 148 & 149
of the IPC and Sections 27/25/54 of the Arms Act, registered at Police
Station Assandh, District Karnal (Annexure P-1), have prayed for quashing
1 of 3
CRM-M-30786-2019 (O&M) -2-
of F.I.R. with all subsequent proceedings, as also the judgment of
conviction passed by the Court below, i.e., Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Assandh (Karnal), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).
[2]. The petitioners were convicted of the offences under Sections
323, 324, 148 & 149 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. There is no
conviction under the Arms Act. The judgment of conviction has been
challenged in the appeal which is pending before the Sessions Court at
Karnal. Now, the instant petition has been filed, since the parties concerned
have arrived at a settlement. The matter was referred to the Court below for
recording of statements of the parties and to report with respect to
genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Ld.
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide report dated 08.08.2019,
has apprised this Court that the compromise arrived at between the parties
is genuine and without any pressure.
[3]. Respondent Nos.2 & 3, i.e., complainant and his son, who was
also attacked upon in the occurrence, are represented by their Counsel
through Video Conferencing, who does not dispute the compromise.
[4]. In view of the report of the Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Karnal, and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012(4) RCR (Criminal)
543 and "Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another",
(2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose can
be served by keeping with the criminal proceedings pending, since the
complainant and his son have themselves compromised the dispute with the
petitioners/ accused persons.
2 of 3
CRM-M-30786-2019 (O&M) -3-
[5]. In the circumstances and in view of the decisions of the
Supreme Court in "Gulab Das Vs. State of M.P.", 2012 (1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 220 and "Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan", 2013 (11)
S.C.C. 511, while sustaining conviction of the petitioners for the offences
under Sections 323, 324, 148 & 149 of the IPC, the matter is disposed off
with a direction that no further sentence apart from the one already
undergone by them, needs to be suffered by them nor any fine needs to be
paid. F.I.R. No. 166, dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure P-1), with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence (Annexure P-2), are hereby quashed on the
basis of compromise qua the present petitioners.
22.02.2021 (SUDIP AHLUWALIA)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/ No
3 of 3
