IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Harpal Singh and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondent
CRM-M-49002-2021
Decided on : 05-01-2022
FIR Quashing - Compromise - 452, 307, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149, 25/57 of Arms Act - The court analyzed the compromise between the accused and the victims, the nature of the offences, and the societal impact. It concluded that the ends of justice justified quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The accused sought to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise with the victims, who had accused them of serious offences including causing injuries with a firearm.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused and the victims had amicably settled the matter, and the settlement was not secured through coercion or threats. It also considered the societal impact and the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence.
Issues: The issues involved the compromise between the accused and the victims, the nature of the offences, and the societal impact of quashing the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the settlement not affecting public peace or moral fabric, the absence of coercion in the compromise, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 14 | 16.02.2021 | Ghanie Ke Bangar, District Gurdaspur | 452, 307, 324, 323, 427, 148 & Police District Batala, 149 and Sections 25/57 of Arms Act |
1. The petitioners, who have arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the victims.
2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner(s) is that on 13.02.2021, the police recorded the statement of complainant (respondent No.2 herein) under Section 154 Cr.P.C., in the following terms:-
3. After that the investigation was conducted and other procedures were followed. During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the injured have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. After that, the petitioners have come up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, the injured have been impleaded as respondent(s).
4. On the prayer of the parties in the present petition, the Court had permitted the parties to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements. As per the concerned Sessions Court's report, the victim(s), without any threat, consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings.
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
5. Undoubtedly, the offences are under Section 307 IPC and one of the accused even used firearm but question for this Court is that when the villagers have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectable and assura
Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney
Ram Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh
Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Dimpey Gujraj v Union Territory
State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat
Narinder Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab &Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466]
State of Maharashtra vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi
Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat
Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.