Saroop Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Inderjit Singh, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr. P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No. 76 dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 and 506 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-Sukhwinder Singh on the allegations that around three months ago Saroop Singh along with his family members had fled from his house after duping the people of crores of rupees and had locked his house. On the day of registration of the FIR, they returned back accompanied by their relatives. As soon as Saroop Singh and his family members came, the people to whom he owned money gathered there. On seeing the crowd, Saroop Singh and his family got infuriated and raised a ''Lalkara'' to shoot them. Saroop Singh with an intention to kill the complainant fired at him on which he and other people saved themselves by running from there. Surinder Kaur and Ravinderpal Singh attacked Bhola and Parveen Kaur and slapped them. On seeing the people, Saroop Singh and his family ran away from the spot. Rattan Singh, brother-in-law of Saroop Singh fired upon them from his.12 bore rifle with an intention to kill them. Now with the intervention of the respectable, the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 and they are willing to live peacefully and bury the hatchet. It is mentioned that initially complaint was lodged against 12 persons, however, only the petitioners have been sent to face the trial, while other co-accused were found to be innocent, hence they were kept in column No. 2. It is submitted that no injury of any sorts whatsoever has been reported in the present matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as no injury of any sorts has been reported in the matter, therefore, no offence u/s 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has sent his report dated 8.5.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Complainant Sukhwinder Singh has stated that the matter has been compromised voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No. 76 dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 and 506 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.