CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sukhdev Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 August 2011 · Citation: (2011) 08 P&H CK 0274

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajai Lamba, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 323, 325, 326
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10749-M of 2011 (O and M)
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

8 paragraphs · 352 words

Ajai Lamba, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No. 15 dated 13.2.2005 under Sections 326, 325, 452, 148, 149, 323, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-5).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an incident took place in which both the sides were injured. The FIR came to be lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2/Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma, in which the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. The cross version has been registered at the instance of Sukhdev Singh (petitioner No. 1) and respondent No. 2/Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma is being prosecuted.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2 contend that all the disputes between the parties have been settled by way of compromise (Annexure P-5). It has been pleaded that the parties are residents of the same village and, in the interest of peace and harmony, do not want to prosecute each other.

4.

Respondent No. 2/Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma, as identified by his counsel Shri Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate, is present in court and states that he is not ready to prosecute the petitioners, in view of terms of compromise (Annexure P-5) and he would not be bringing any evidence to Court.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that because the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

6.

Having considered the stand of respondent No. 2, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose in law would be served by continuance of proceedings. Rather, in the interest of peace and harmony, the FIR needs to be quashed because the petitioners and respondent No. 2 want to live in peace.

7.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed.

8.

FIR No. 15 dated 13.2.2005 under Sections 326, 325, 452, 148, 149, 323, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed.