AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)
Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.quashing of FIR No.180 dated 09.10.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 148 and 149 IPC324, 341, 148 and 149 IPC, Police Station Malerkotla, Sangrur (Now District Malerkotla) Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 06.02.2026. Sections 325 and 326 of IPCand 326 of IPC were added in the FIR during investigation.
Status report dated 14.09.2026 by way of an affidavit of Sh. Manavjit Singh (PPS), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-division Malerkotla, DistrictDistrict Malerkotla has been filedfiled on behalf of respondent No.1-State with thethe order dated 04.08.2026, whichwhich is taken on record.
As per status report filed by the State, there were 07 accused in the FIR, out of which, two namely Mukhtiar Singh and Baddu have expired. Apart from complainant Piara Singh, there were two injured Baljit Singh and Paramjit Kaur, who too have died and their legal heirs have appeared to affirm compromise between the parties. Status report also shows that police had cancelled the FIR on the basis of compromise.
On 29.05.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise datedo compromise dated 06.02.2026.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned ChiefChief Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotlae, Malerkotla on 12.06.2026. Statement of Investigating Officer HC Deepak Kumar was recorded on 07.07.2026. Learned ChiefChief Judicial Magistrate, MalerkotlaJudicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, has submitted her report recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Point-wise report as under has been submitted:
“1.As per statement of Investigating Officer, there are total seven persons namely Mukhtiar Singh son of Sadhu Singh, Gurjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh(petitioner no.1), Surjit Singh alias Goggi son of Mukhtiar Singh(petitioner no.2), Surjit Singh son of Karnail Singh(petitioner no.3), Ranjit Singh son of Karnail Singh(petitioner no.4), Jagsir Singh alias Jaggu son of Balvir Singh(petitioner no.5) and Baadu son of Seeta Singh found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR. He further stated that accused Mukhtiar Singh and Baadu have since died;
2.As per statement of Investigating Officer, there are three victims in the case i.e. complainant Piara Singh and injured Baljit Singh and Paramjit Kaur. He further stated that injured Baljit Singh and Paramjit Kaur have since died;
3.As per statements of the parties and perusal of copy of compromise Mark B, complainant Piara Singh, Raghbir Singh and Balvir Singh (legal heirs of injured Baljit Singh), Manpreet Singh (legal heir of injured Paramjit Kaur) and accused/petitioners no.1 to 5 i.e. Gurjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, Surjit Singh alias Goggi son of Mukhtiar Singh, Surjit Singh son of Karnail Singh, Ranjit Singh son of Karnail Singh and Jagsir Singh alias Jaggu son of Balvir Singh are party to the compromise and they signed the samethey signed the same;
4.As per statements of parties and Investigating Officer, no affected person(accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before Hon'ble High Court. As per statement of Investigating Officer, accused Mukhtiar Singh, Baddu and injured Baljit Singh and Paramjit Kaur have died and legal heirs of deceased injured Baljit Singh and Paramjit Kaur have recorded their statements qua compromise;
5.As per statements of Investigating Officer, accused and report of Ahlmad, accused have never been declared proclaimed offender/person nor any such proceedings against them have been initiated or pending adjudication;
6.As per statements of parties, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and out of free will of the parties;
7.As per statements of parties and Investigating Officer, there is no other aspect relevant to the present case.”
Learned State counsel has not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise. Since the matter has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
Following principles of law laid down by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others”(2012) 10 SCC 303, the petition is allowed.
FIR No.180 dated 09.10.2006dated 09.10.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 148, 149, 325 and 326 IPC, Police StationPolice Station Malerkotla, Sangrur (Now District Malerkotla) Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 06.02.2026.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.