Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 April, 2024
284 2024:PHHC:055137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-23678-2023
Date of Decision: April 23, 2024
GURDEEP SINGH ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate and
Mr. Hanspal Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kanhyia Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the
petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No.0108 dated 14.08.2020
registered under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC &
Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at P.S. City Samana, District Patiala
(now converted to Sections 336, 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC)
along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the same
on the basis of the compromise/affidavit dated 28.09.2022
(Annexure P-2).
2. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner
along with other accused inflicted injuries upon complainant-respondent
No.2 with knife and other weapons. Though, the FIR was initially
registered under Section 307 of IPC as well, however, the same stands
deleted during the investigation. As per the records, the FIR was
originally registered against 6 individuals including the petitioner,
whereas, two accused were declared as innocent and the remaining
three have not been apprehended by the Investigating Agency so far.
3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated
11.05.2023 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 11.05.2023, a report dated
15.06.2023 has been received from the concerned Court, stating that the
compromise in the present case is genuine and voluntary. Though there
were six accused in the FIR, however, compromise has been effected only
with one accused.
5. Thus once, the compromise has been arrived at between
the parties without any pressure and respondent No.2 has no objection
as regard quashing of FIR as well as all other subsequent proceedings
arising out of the same against the petitioner; the dispute purely
personal in nature, there does not appear to be any impediment as
regards quashing of present FIR, in part, qua the petitioner. 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 in question, qua the
petitioner, 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
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 petitioner, while placing
reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
'Jayrajsingh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and Another',
2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 589 and this Court in 'Joginder Singh &
Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another', passed in CRM-M-23739-
2010 decided on 27.04.2011, 'Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Another', passed in CRM-M- 37395-2016 decided on 16.05.2017 and
'Vimal Kalra & others Vs. State of Punjab & another', passed in
CRM-M-20355-2022, 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 report, accompanied by
statements of both the parties as well as keeping in mind the law laid
down in the aforementioned judgments, the FIR No. 0108 dated
14.08.2020 registered under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506, 148 and 149
of IPC & Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at P.S. City Samana, District
Patiala (now converted to Sections 336, 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of
IPC) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, petition stands, allowed, however subject to
providing one wheelchair and sphygmomanometer to the CHC,
Samana, District Patiala within a period of two weeks from today as
volunteered by the petitioner against due receipt issued by the
concerned Civil Surgeon, who shall prepare an inventory in this regard
for its regular inspection by the Director concerned. A copy of the
receipt shall also be sent to the office of Advocate General, Punjab at
the earliest for maintaining records in this regard.
23.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
