IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

257 CRM-M-56865-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.03.2025 Navpreet Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sahil, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of FIR No. 245 dated 14.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 307, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana (wrongly mentioned as ‘District Khanna’ in the FIR) along with all the subsequent proceeding having emanated therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis of the statement made by respondent No. 2/complainant Harpreet Singh @ Harveer Singh alleging therein that on 10.11.2021, petitioner No. 1-Navpreet Singh, who was his friend, had come to his house along with petitioner No. 2- Amritpal Singh. Petitioner No. 1 had demanded some money and on his refusal to give the same, he had proclaimed that he would shot him if money was not given to him and then fired a shot upon him from his pistol, which pierced through his throat and exited from his mouth. He had become semi- conscious and was taken to hospital, wherein he was given medical treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioners were arrested and subsequently they were released on bail. The trial is going on.

3. This petition has been filed on the grounds that a compromise has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant and in pursuance thereof, respondent No. 2 has agreed to get the aforementioned FIR quashed. The said compromise has also been reduced into writing and a copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

4. Respondent No. 2/complainant put in appearance through his counsel and admitted the factum of compromise. Direction was given to the parties to record their statements before the learned trial Court to show the genuineness of the compromise. The same were recorded on 15.02.2025. The statement of the Investigating Officer had also been recorded, as per which, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even though offence under Section 307 of IPC has been added in the instant case, however, neither respondent No. 2/complainant nor the other material witness i.e. his mother Jaswinder Kaur, while appearing before the learned trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, have implicated the petitioners in commission of offences for which they have been booked and chargesheeted. Both these witnesses have turned hostile and stated that the petitioners had never fired any shot with the pistol upon the complainant to kill him. It is argued that the petitioners had been falsely implicated. The compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any pressure and, therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has stated that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed in favour of the petitioners.

7. On the other hand, Ms. Himani Arora, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the allegations against the petitioners are quite serious in nature. They have been booked, challaned and chargesheeted for commission of several offences including offe