High CourtsSingle Bench

Kulwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 P&H CK 0035

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudip Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 186, 332, 353
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 28993 Of 2020, 20777 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 334 words

Sudip Ahluwalia, J

CRM-28993-2020

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the prayer for preponement is allowed and the date of hearing in the main appeal is preponed to today

itself (from 28.01.2021).

Application stands disposed off.

CRM-M-20777-2019

In this petition, the petitioner, who is the accused in F.I.R No.181, dated 27.12.2016, under Sections 353, 186 & 332 of the Indian Penal Code,

registered at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1), has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. with all subsequent proceedings,

on the basis of compromise.

[2]. With the intervention of respectables and elderly people of the society, the complainant has arrived at a settlement with the accused vide

Compromise Deed & Affidavit (Annexures P-2 & P-3), which are duly signed by him. The matter was referred to the Court below for recording of

statements of the parties and to report with respect to genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Malout, vide report dated 30.05.2019, has apprised this Court that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without

any pressure.

[3]. Respondent No.2 is represented by his Counsel through Video Conferencing, who does not oppose the compromise.

[4]. In view of the report of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inâ €œGian

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anotherâ€​, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and “Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Anotherâ€, (2014)

6 SCC 466, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose can be served by keeping with the criminal proceedings pending, since the complainant

has himself compromised the dispute with the petitioner/accused.

[5]. In the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. F.I.R No.181, dated 27.12.2016, under Sections 353, 186 & 332 of the Indian Penal Code,

registered at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1), with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby

quashed qua the present petitioner.