SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KAMALJEET SINGH ETC. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRA-S-736-SB-2012

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-5615-2025 in/and

CRA-S-736-SB-2012 (O&M)

Date of Judgment: 22.12.2025

Uploaded on : 24.12.2025

Kamaljeet Singh & others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CRA-S-845-SB-2012 (O&M)

Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi & another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CRA-S-1063-DB-2012 (O&M)

State of Punjab ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kamaljit Singh & others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present: Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate

for the appellant(s).

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Jatin Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral),

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

178 01.08.2010 Sadar Jalandhar 307, 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC

Case No. Sessions Case No.10100008/2011

Date of Decision: 20.01.2012

Names of accused/ Kamaljit Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, Satwant

convict Singh @ Gopi and Pardeep Singh.

Conviction under sec- 324 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC

tions

Sentence imposed (Sub- Rigorous Imprisonment for maximum period of 2 years

stantial sentence) along with fine.

ASHWANI KUMAR

2025.12.24 14:39

I attest to the accuracy and integrity

of this order/judgment

Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

##PAGE2##

CRA-S-736-SB-2012

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:1)

1. This order shall dispose of three appeals i.e. CRA-S-736-SB-2012, CRA-S-845-SB-

2012 and CRA-1063-DB-2012, as the same have arisen out of common incident and similar

facts and common question of law are involved in all the appeals. However, for brevity, facts

have been noticed from CRA-S-736-SB-2012.

2. This appellant-convict(s) had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal

seeking setting aside of their conviction and order of sentence.

3. Vide order dated 23.02.2012 passed in CRA-S-736-SB-2012 and vide order dated

6.3.2012 passed in CRA-S-845-SB-2012, the appeal(s) stand admitted and the substantive

sentence of the appellants was suspended during the pendency of the appeal(s).

4. During the pendency of appeal(s), all the appellant-convicts filed CRM-5615-2025

in CRA-S-736-SB-2012 stating that now, they have settled the matter with the

complainant/victim(s) vide compromise deed dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure A-1) and

accordingly, the parties were directed to appear before the concerned Trial Court/Illaqa

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for getting their statements recorded with regard to the

compromise so arrived.

5. Accordingly, report(s) of the concerned Court has been received, as per which, parties

have stated that they have voluntarily compromised the matter with each other and have no

objection if the Court sets aside the judgment(s) of conviction and order(s) of sentence and

consequent proceedings arising therefrom. It has also been intimated that appellant-convict

Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi has expired.

6. On oral request of counsel for the parties, the appeals have been taken on board.

ANALYSIS & REASONING:

7. Despite the severe opposition of the State’s counsel to this compromise, the following

aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The accused and the private respondent have amicably settled the matter

between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the

concerned Court;

b) A perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured

through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means;

c) The aggrieved person has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal

proceedings;

d) There is no objection from the private respondent in case present FIR and

consequent proceedings are quashed;

e) In the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquillity,

moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top