Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tirth Singh Alias Tirath Singh vs Satnam Singh on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040317
CRM-M-7531-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:040317
284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7531-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Tirth Singh @ Tirath Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. J.S. Ghumman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate
for the respondent.
******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the Complaint case bearing
No.SC/35/2016 dated 30.01.2016 under Sections 307, 326, 324, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise
dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure P-2).
2. The following order was passed on 14.02.2024: -
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040317
2024:PHHC:040317
"This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of complaint case registered as SC 35 of
2016 dated 30.01.2016 under Sections 307/326/324/34 of
IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of compromise dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends
that the injuries on the vital part of the body was attributed
to co-accused-Balihar Singh and Balvir Singh and petitioner
is alleged to have given injuries on the left hand and lift
thigh of the complainant. Balvir Singh who is alleged to have
hit the complainant with datar on the left side of the head of
the complaint has been acquitted by the learned trial Court
and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner
can be held liable for an offence under Section 307 of IPC.
To support his contention, he relies upon upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'The State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others' 2019 (5) SCC 688.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, on the asking of the Court, Mr. Armaan
Gagneja, Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1 and
files his power of attorney and admits to the factum of
compromise. Copy of the paper book be supplied to them
during the course of day.
Service is complete.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing record of the case, this Court finds force in the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Now the parties are directed to appear before the
learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate within two weeks from
today or any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate, to get their statements recorded regarding
compromise and after recording their statements, learned
trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to send report
regarding the genuineness of compromise and also to
intimate whether any PO proceedings are pending against
any of the party on or before the date fixed i.e. 20.03.2024.
A copy of the order be sent to learned trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate through fax for compliance."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040317
2024:PHHC:040317
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report has been
received from the concerned jurisdictional Court that the compromise
between the parties is genuine and arrived at without any pressure or
coercion from anyone.
4. In view of the compromise and the ratio of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Ramgopal and another Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 and Shakuntala
Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 and
Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007
(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition is allowed and Complaint case bearing
No.SC/35/2016 dated 30.01.2016 under Sections 307, 326, 324, 34 IPC,
pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur,
District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same
are quashed, qua the petitioner.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
20.03.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
