Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1697 (PNJ)

Nishan Deep v. State of Punjab

2012-12-03

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

body2012
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:— This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 28 dated 01.10.2010, under Sections 295-A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Satnampura, District Kapurthala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 01.11.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear before the learned trial court on 09.11.2012 for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said court was also directed to send its detailed report in that regard to this Court on or before the next date of hearing. In compliance thereof, petitioners-Nishan Deep and Gagan Sharma as well as respondent No. 2/complainant-Ram Kumar Chadha did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. Even the witnesses to the occurrence, namely, Jai Dev Duggal, Ajay Sharma, Ripusudan and Anirudh Kumar, appeared before the court below and got recorded their respective statements. Ram Kumar Chadha (respondent No. 2/complainant) and his witnesses stated that they had compromised the matter with the petitioners. They further stated that they had no objection if the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners was quashed. Similar statement was suffered by the petitioners. The report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, reveals that the compromise effected between the parties was voluntary one. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of some dispute amongst the artists who had to play the Ramlila, the present occurrence had taken place. He further submits that due to intervention of the respectable and the elderly people of the society, both the factions have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise. He further submits that ultimate chances of conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak, therefore, the pendency of the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom would be the sheer abuse of process of law. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Hans Raj, Police Station, Satnampura, District Kapurthala, admits the factum of compromise. Learned State counsel, after going through the statements and the status report, sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Hans Raj, Police Station, Satnampura, District Kapurthala, admits the factum of compromise. Learned State counsel, after going through the statements and the status report, sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant states that respondent No. 2/complainant and other prosecution witnesses did appear before the court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. He further submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed in view of the compromise effected between the parties. He also submits that the compromise would enhance the peace and harmony amongst both the factions. Heard. On account of a dispute in a dramatic club which had to play Ramlila, a dispute had arisen. Due to intervention of the respectable and the elderly people of the society, the private parties have resolved their disputes and effected a compromise. The statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses as well as of the petitioners have already been recorded by the learned trial court under the directions of this Court with regard to the compromise. All of them admitted the factum of compromise. In view of the above facts, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak, therefore, pendency of FIR and the continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law. Keeping in view the factum of the compromise and the ratio of the judgment delivered by a Five Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 28 dated 01.10.2010, under Sections 295-A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Satnampura, District Kapurthala, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.