Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 March, 2021
205/3 CRM-M-32860 of 2020
Harpreet Singh @ Happy v. State of Punjab
****
2) CRM-M-35544 of 2020
Simar Singh v. State of Punjab
****
3) CRM-M-9451 of 2019 (O&M)
Harpreet Singh @ Happy v. State of Punjab
****
Present: Ms. Sukhpreet Grewal, Advocate,
for the petitioner (s) in CRM-M-32860 and 35544 of 2020.
Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-9451 of 2019
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, DAG, Punjab
****
CRM-M-32860 of 2020 and
CRM-M-35544 of 2020
By these petitions, the petitioners seek the concession of
'anticipatory bail' upon FIR no.75, dated 26.06.2018, having been registered at
Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar, alleging therein the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC as also
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Pursuant to the orders dated 15.10.2020 and 04.11.2020, learned
State counsel submits that, as per his instructions, the petitioners have joined
investigation and presently their custodial interrogation is not required, with
him further submitting that no injury was found to have been received by any
person involved in the alleged occurrence.
That being so, these petitions have in fact been rendered
infructuous and are disposed of as such.
However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at
any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, they would be
1 of 3
CRM-M-32860 of 2020 and connected petitions -2-
given 10 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon them.
Naturally, if the complainant is aggrieved in any manner, of lack
of proper investigation, he would be always at liberty to avail of his remedy as
per law.
CRM-M-9451 of 2019 (O&M)
By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the same
FIRregistered at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural, on the
basis of a compromise stated to have been reached between the parties. A copy
of the compromise in the shape of affidavits has been annexed as Annexure P-2
(colly.) with the petition.
Though, pursuant to the orders of this court dated 27.02.2020 and
13.01.2021, the report of the learned Addl. Sessions District & Sessions Judge,
Amritsar, dated 29.01.2021, has been received, stating to the effect that the
statement of the parties, i.e. the complainant Parminder Singh as also of the
accused, have been recorded in terms of the compromise stated to have reached
between the parties, with none of the accused stated to be a proclaimed
offender in the case (with the statement of respondent no.3, Balwinder Singh
also having been recorded), however, as also pointed out by learned State
counsel, one of the allegations in the FIR is the use of a fire arm.
Counsel for the parties would address arguments as to how, qua an
offence punishable under the provisions of Arms Act, can any FIR be quashed
on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties, especially if the
weapon alleged to have been used was found to be an unlicensed weapon.
As regards the allegation made of the commission of an offence
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, it is also the case of the State that
there was no injury received and therefore, possibly, the bar obtaining in terms
2 of 3
CRM-M-32860 of 2020 and connected petitions -3-
of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State
of Punjab 2014(6) SCC 466 may not apply, subject of course to arguments in
that regard being addressed by counsel for the parties.
A gazetted officer is directed to file a reply to the petition, giving
therein the findings in the investigation carried out so far, especially with
regard to the alleged used of a fire arm.
Adjourned to 03.05.2021.
A photocopy of this order be also placed on the file of the other
connected cases.
March 08, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
dinesh JUDGE
3 of 3
