Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 15 April, 2024
264 2024:PHHC:050086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31181-2017
Date of Decision: April 15, 2024
MOHAN AND ORS ........Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the
petitioners pray for quashing of case bearing FIR No.267 dated
30.08.2012 registered under Sections 323, 324, 285, 506, 326 and 34 of
IPC & Section 27 of Arms Act, at P.S. Rai, Sonepat along with all
consequential proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of
compromise dated 19.08.2022.
2. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioners fired a
gun shot on the complainant-respondent No.2 and attacked him with a
knife. Though, in the present case, weapon of offence is knife, however,
as per the opinion given by the Doctor, Government Hospital Sonepat on
06.10.2012, injuries No.1 and 2 have been declared as simple in nature
and the parties to the dispute belong to the same village.
3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated
12.02.2024 directed the parties to appear before trial Court for getting their
statements recorded as regards the veracity of the compromise arrived at
between them.
4. In pursuance to the order dated 12.02.2024, a report dated
04.03.2024 has been received from the concerned Court, stating that the
compromise in the present case is genuine and voluntary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once, a
compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure
and respondent No.2 has no objection as regards quashing of FIR as well
as all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the same against the
petitioners; the dispute purely personal in nature, there does not appear to
be any impediment as regards quashing of present FIR. He also submits
that even, in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties,
particularly under the 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. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that
allegations in the present FIR are of serious nature and he opposes the
prayer made in the petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the records including the report dated 04.03.2024. 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 directions issued by this Court in 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".
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid report, accompanied by
statements of both the parties as well as keeping in mind the law laid
down in the aforementioned judgments, the petition is allowed and FIR
No. 267 dated 30.08.2012 registered under Sections 323, 324, 285, 506,
326 and 34 of IPC & Section 27 of Arms Act, at P.S. Rai, Sonepat along
with all consequential proceeding arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed.
9. The aforesaid order shall, however, be subject to payment
of Costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with Poor Patients' Welfare
Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of two weeks from today.
15.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
