IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9738-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.02.2025 Manjit Singh and another ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Santokhwinder Singh Grewal (Nabha), Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) [now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)] for quashing of FIR No.196 dated 16.11.2016 under Sections 307, 447, 427, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’), registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per case set up by the prosecution, are that Ranjit Singh Patwari son of Pritam Singh was allegedly armed with 12 bore gun, Manjit Singh son of Pritam Singh was allegedly armed with revolver, Upneet Singh son of Manjit Singh was allegedly armed with a daang at the spot and Amaninder Singh son of Baldev Singh allegedly raised a lalkara for making an assault upon the victim-injured Balwant Singh. Complainant- respondent No.2 levelled specific allegations with regard to use of firearms in inflicting injuries on various parts of the body including on vital part i.e. chest and during his medical examination, following injuries were found to have been caused on the person of complainant-respondent No.2 Balwant Singh: -

“1. Gunshot wound 1x1 cm present over chest wall left side 4cm superolateral to left nipple.

2. Gunshot wound 1x1 cm present over antero-lateral side right forearm 4cm below elbow joint.

3. Gunshot wound 1x1 cm present over medial aspect right arm 8cm below shoulder joint.

4. Gunshot wound 1x1 cm present over lateral aspect of right side chest wall 8cm lateral to nipple & 7 cm below axilla.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that FIR (supra) was registered on 16.11.2016 and charges were framed on 10.04.2017. It is a case of version and cross-version, which was registered vide DDR GD No.16 dated 17.11.2016. On the same set of allegations, during the investigation, all other accused except the petitioners were declared innocent. The trial has not made much progress and only examination-in-chief of respondent No.2 has been conducted so far. Now with the intervention of respectables, the petitioners and respondent No.2, out of their free will and consent, have entered into a compromise and the matter has been amicably settled and on 05.01.2025, the compromise (Annexure P-9) was reduced into writing in the presence of village Headman and other respectables, as the petitioners and respondent No.2 are residents of same village. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.660 of 2025, arising out of SLP Criminal No.3432 of 2023, decided on 11.02.2025, in which it has been held that there is no embargo in quashing of FIR under Section 307 of IPC on the basis of compromise. He further relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dimpy Gujral and others Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013(11) SCC 497, wherein it has been held that the offence under Section 307 of IPC can be termed as a private dispute and it does not impinge upon public interest and substantial justice.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposes the prayer made by the petitioners on the ground that FIR (supra) was registered in the year 2016 and now the trial has made substantial progress and there are total 15 prosecution witnesses and all have been examined a