Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Sahni @ Mohit Sahni vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102956
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:07:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102956
2
CRM-M-20168-2024 (O&M)
Sections 336, 506 IPC and 27 Arms Act registered at Police Station Division
No.8, District Ludhiana, and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. This Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 had directed the parties
to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded
and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the
genuineness of the compromise.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and got their
statements recorded. It has been mentioned in the report that two persons
namely Rahul Sahni @ Mohit Sahni and Honey Sahota were arrayed as
accused in the FIR, however, vide order dated 21.04.2023 passed by Ld.
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, one of the accused person namely
Honey Sahota has been declared as proclaimed person. On the basis of the
statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted report dated
03.05.2024 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the
parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Separate
statements of present petitioner, respondent No.2 (complainant) as well as
the Investigating Officer have been recorded.
4. The factum of compromise having been arrived at between the
parties has neither been disputed by learned State counsel nor by the counsel
for respondents No.2. Learned State counsel, however, has submitted that it
is a case of partial compromise as the co-accused Honey Sahota is not a
party to the same and it might have repercussions upon the trial. In the
opinion of this Court, since it has come on record that the compromise has
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102956
CRM-M-20168-2024 (O&M)
been effected between the parties to maintain peace and harmony, therefore,
continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of
process of law thus partial quashing or part quashing of the FIR qua the
petitioner only, can be allowed. In this regard reliance can be placed upon
the observations made by Delhi High Court in "Sunil Tomar Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi", 2022(2) Crl. CC 179 and "Lovely Salhotra and another vs.
State of NCT of Delhi", (2018) 12 SCC 391 as well as judgments passed by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Parambir Singh Gill vs. Malkiat
Kaur", 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 256 and "Samay Singh vs. State of
Haryana" 2023 NCPHHC 99612.
5. As per the discussion so made above, no useful purpose would
be served by continuing the proceedings before the learned trial Court in the
instant FIR.
6. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment
of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and
another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (Supra),
this petition is allowed and FIR No.331 dated 14.09.2020 under Sections
336, 506 IPC and 27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Division no. 8,
District Ludhiana, Punjab and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) are quashed
qua the petitioner herein only.
(MANISHA BATRA)
5th September, 2024 JUDGE
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
