Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Another

Sandeep Kumar vs State of Punjab and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 02, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1071896

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1071896
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Apr 02, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandeep Kumar

Respondent

State of Punjab and Another

Excerpt

.....ram chand gupta present: mr.g.s.bhandari, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.deepak garg, aag, punjab. mr.d.s.dhillon, advocate, for respondent no.2. ***** ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present petition has been filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing of fir no.90 dated 23.04.2009, under sections 406/420/465/471 ipc, registered at police station city muktsar, district muktsar, annexure p1, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, annexure p2, having been entered between the parties. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. crm not m-25959 o”2. it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute between the parties was regarding payment of money and the same has been settled and requisite money has been paid to respondent no.2- complainant. learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also stated that dispute has since been settled and that he is having no objection if the fir and consequential proceedings are quashed. as per order of this court, both the parties also appeared before learned trial court and got their statements recorded. report has been received from learned trial court to the effect that compromise effected between the parties is voluntary one. in appropriate cases fir can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under section 482 cr.p.c., even if the offences are not compoundable. it was so held by full bench of this court in the case of kulwinder singh v. state of punjab, 2007(3) rcr (crl.) 1052. since the parties have amicably settled the matter, in the interest of harmonious relations between the parties, the present petition is allowed and the impugned fir no.90 dated 23.04.2009, under sections 406/420/465/471 ipc, registered at police station city muktsar, district muktsar, annexure p1 alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioner -sandeep kumar is, hereby, quashed. ( ram chand gupta.....

Full Judgment

CRM not M-25959 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 25959 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: April 2, 2013.

Sandeep Kumar .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab and another .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.S.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Deepak Garg, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.D.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR no.90 dated 23.04.2009, under Sections 406/420/465/471 IPC, registered at police station city Muktsar, District Muktsar, Annexure P1, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, Annexure P2, having been entered between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

CRM not M-25959 o”

2. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute between the parties was regarding payment of money and the same has been settled and requisite money has been paid to respondent no.2- complainant.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also stated that dispute has since been settled and that he is having no objection if the FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

As per order of this Court, both the parties also appeared before learned trial court and got their statements recorded.

Report has been received from learned trial court to the effect that compromise effected between the parties is voluntary one.

In appropriate cases FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable.

It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v.

State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.

Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, in the interest of harmonious relations between the parties, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.90 dated 23.04.2009, under Sections 406/420/465/471 IPC, registered at police station city Muktsar, District Muktsar, Annexure P1 alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioner -Sandeep Kumar is, hereby, quashed.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 2, 2013.

JUDGE ‘om’

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2013 Same Parties Sandeep Kumar vs State of Punjab and Another Same Subject Education