Navjot Singh @ Kandola Navjot ... vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1528 P&H

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH
SR. No.233

                                              CRM-M-2051-2020
                                              Date of Decision:11.03.2022

Navjot Singh @ Kandola Navjot Singh

                                                                           ...Petitioner
                                            Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH

Present:     Mr. Kawaljyot Singh, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Yagyaang Ajay, Advocate
             for respondents No.2 to 4.

             [The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the
             proceedings are being conducted in virtual court.]


SANT PARKASH, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under ction 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No.61 dated 10.08.2016 registered under Sections 323/325/452/148/149 IPC at Police Station Noormehal, District Jalandhar Rural as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (P-2).

While issuing notice of motion on 20.01.2020, this Court directed both the parties to appear before the trial Court to record their statements with regard to genuineness of the compromise and the learned trial Court was directed to send a report to this Court in this regard. The report dated 25.02.2020 of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phillaur has been received, wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the statements of the parties were recorded which indicates that the compromise is genuine, without any coercion or undue influence. It is further mentioned in the report that the FIR in question has been registered against accused Harjit Singh @ Sukha, Anand Singh, Navjot Singh (present petitioner),

1 of 3

Baljit Singh, Surinder Singh, Gurmail Singh and Manjeet. As per the statement of complainant, accused/petitioner-Navjot Singh @ Kandola Navjot Singh and Manjit Singh were declared as PO in this case and other accused has already been acquitted. The case against Harjit Singh @ Sukha, Anand Singh, Baljit Singh, Surinder Singh and Gurmail Singh has already been decided.

Learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties admit that parties have settled their disputes.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in CRM-M-6628-2019 titled as 'Mukhwinder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 16.05.2019 ; CRM-M-26644-2021 titled as 'Gurmej Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 24.09.2021; CRM-M-28616-2020 titled as 'Rishab Singla and another Vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 29.10.2020 ; CRM-M-37395-2016 titled as 'Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 16.05.2017 and CRM-M-50696-2018 titled as 'Mohit Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 05.02.2019 whereby settlement/compromise was effected between the complainant and one of the accused person and the proceedings qua the said accused person was quashed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at an out of the Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P-2). The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also the above referred

2 of 3

judicial precedents wherein this Court has allowed partial quashing, the present petition is allowed.

Resultantly, FIR No.61 dated 10.08.2016 registered under Sections 323/325/452/148/149 IPC at Police Station Noormehal, District Jalandhar Rural as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.

11.03.2022                                           (SANT PARKASH)
mks                                                      JUDGE

                   Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
                   Whether Reportable:               YES / NO




                                      3 of 3