High Courts(1993) 11 P&H CK 0061

Mohinder Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab and ors.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 November 1993 · Citation: (1994) 1 AICLR 279 : (1994) 1 Crimes 482 : (1994) 1 RCR(Criminal) 84

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous 13498-M of 1993

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 511 words

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

1.

On 461992 FIR No. 24 under Sections 307/326/324/323/148/149 IPC was registered at Police Station Banur on the statement of Balwinderjit Singh respondent No. 3. In that incident the Petitioners, who were the accused, also sustained injuries and on the statement of petitioner No. 1 respondents No 3 to 6 were proceeded against under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC. The petitioners have now filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the above referred first information report. They contended that none of the injured ever remained as indoor patient and they were discharged after first aid. No one suffered any injury which could be termed as grievous or dangerous to life and there was no fracture., No evidence had been collected against the accused in either case although 16 months had elapsed and even challan had not been presented so far. From the medical evidence no case beyond the scope of Section 326 IPC was made out with the passage of time the illwill between the parties had vanished and no witness was to appear either against the petitioners or against respondents No. 3 to 6.

2.

Respondents No. 2 to 6 submitted their reply alleging that the parties had effected compromise on the very next day of the incident and had executed a compromise deed Annexure R/1. The dispute had been amicably settled and they had buried the hatchest.

3.

The parties have produced compromise deed stating that due to some misunderstanding a scuffle took place between the parties and FIR No. 24 dated 4.6.1992 was lodged at Police Station Banur. Immediately thereafter they effected compromise orally and lived amicably. They were no longer interested to proceed with the case & none was willing to support the case so chances of success were bleak.

4.

From the compromise deed and the affidavits furnished by the respondents it is made out that the parties are no longer at daggers drawn and whatever dispute was there which resulted in the incident has been settled amicably. The compromise is arrived at without any threat or coercion by either side. It is correct that some of the offences mentioned in the FIR are not compoundable yet the courts always lean in favour of compromise even in cases which ate not compoundable. This fact is not denied that none of the injured suffered any grievous injury and remained as indoor patient. They were discharged after they were given first aid. Although the occurrence took place long back, yet challan has not been presented against the parties. Even otherwise when the parties have come to terms and they are no longer nourishing any ill will against each other, the chances of success in each case are very bleak and no useful purpose will be served if the proceedings were continued. In order to maintain the cordial relations between the parties and in the greater interest of justice I allow this petition and quash FIR No. 24 dated 461992, registered at Police Station, Banur.