Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shankar Lal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047690
1
CRM-M No.42192 of 2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:047690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
268
CRM-M No.42192 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.04.2024
SHANKAR LAL AND OTHERS ......Petitioners
Vs
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Gaurav Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been
made for quashing of FIR No.125 dated 21.03.2011 registered under Sections 323,
324, 341, 379, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Patiala District Patiala
(Annexure P-1)and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis
of compromise (Annexure P-2).
[2]. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioners have caused
injuries to the complainant along with others. As per FIR, there were five accused
including present petitioners. The accused Rahul has been declared as a proclaimed
offender.
[4]. In pursuance to order dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court, whereby
the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court for
getting their statements recorded as regards the veracity of compromise arrived at
between them, a report dated 01.12.2022 has been received from the concerned
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047690
CRM-M No.42192 of 2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:047690
court, stating that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion
or undue influence. The petitioners-accused except one Rahul have not been
declared as proclaimed offenders.
[5]. Once, the compromise has been arrived at between the parties without
any pressure and respondent No.2 having no objection as regards quashing of FIR
as well as all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same against the
petitioners; there does not appear to be any impediment as regards quashing of
present FIR qua the petitioners. Even otherwise, in order to maintain peace and
harmony between the parties, particularly under the present circumstances wherein
the alleged offences have no societal interest involved, it would be appropriate to
render complete quietus to the aforementioned dispute by quashing the FIR on the
basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
[6]. The parties having settled their dispute so as to live in peace in future,
no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal
proceedings. In the light of above developments, no cause remains for the Trial
Court to invest further time and effort in adjudicating this FIR. The compromise in
question is even found to be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the
Court in the case(s) of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR
(Criminal) 1052 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(4) RCR (Crl.)
543.
[7]. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance
upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jayrajsingh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2012(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 589 and this Court in the case(s) of Joginder Singh & another Vs.
State of Punjab and another, passed in CRM-M No.23739 of 2010 decided on
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047690
CRM-M No.42192 of 2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:047690
27.04.2011, Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, passed in CRM-M
No.37395 of 2016 decided on 16.05.2017 and Vimal Kalra & others Vs. State of
Punjab & another, passed in CRM-M No.20355 of 2022, decided on 25.07.2022
submits that partial quashing of the FIR is possible on the basis of a compromise.
[8]. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, accompanied by statements of
both the parties as well as keeping in mind the law laid down in the
aforementioned judgments, the FIR No.125 dated 21.03.2011 registered under
Sections 323, 324, 341, 379, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Patiala
District Patiala as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
[9]. Accordingly, petition stands allowed however subject to payment of
cost(s) of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners to be deposited in the Poor
Patients Welfare Fund of the PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of two weeks
from today.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
April 08, 2024 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
