Pardeep Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another

Pardeep Kumar and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 31, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1072323

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/1072323
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jan 31, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pardeep Kumar and Others

Respondent

State of Haryana and Another

Excerpt

.....vashisth, advocate, for the petitioners mr.sidharath sarup, dag haryana for respondent no.1 mr.akshy jindal, advocate, for respondent no.2 l.n.mittal, j. (oral) accused pardeep kumar and three others have filed this petition under section 482 of code of criminal procedure (for short, cr.p.c.) for quashing of fir no.150 dated 1.12.2010, under sections 323,406, 498-a ipc, police station cheeka, district kaithal (annexure p/1) in view of compromise (annexure p/3) effected with respondent no.2- complainant who has also furnished affidavit (annexure p/4) regarding the compromise. learned counsel for complainant-respondent no.2 states that parties have effected compromise annexure p/3 and respondent no.2 has also furnished affidavit annexure p/4 regarding the compromise and therefore, respondent no.2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned fir. criminal misc. not m-41241 of 2012 -2- pursuant to order dated 24.12.2012 report has also been received from the trial court along with statements of parties to the effect that the parties have effected compromise voluntarily. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. in appropriate cases, fir can be quashed by this court on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under section 482 cr.p.c., even if the offences are not compoundable. it is all the more so in matrimonial disputes. it was so held by full bench of this court in the case of kulwinder singh vs state of punjab, 2007 (3) law herald (punjab & haryana) 2225. in the instant case, impugned fir is result of matrimonial dispute between the parties. the said dispute has been settled. petitioner no.1 - husband and respondent no.2 - wife are stated to have already filed petition for divorce by mutual consent for dissolution of their marriage. accordingly, it is a fit case in which fir should be quashed. resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned fir annexure p/1 is quashed along with all consequential.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.

not M-41241 of 2012 Date of decision : January 31, 2013 Pardeep Kumar and others ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present : Ms Neeru Bansal, Advocate for Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Sidharath Sarup, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1 Mr.Akshy Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 L.N.Mittal, J.

(Oral) Accused Pardeep Kumar and three others have filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No.150 dated 1.12.2010, under sections 323,406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal (Annexure P/1) in view of compromise (Annexure P/3) effected with respondent No.2- complainant who has also furnished affidavit (Annexure P/4) regarding the compromise.

Learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 states that parties have effected compromise Annexure P/3 and respondent No.2 has also furnished affidavit Annexure P/4 regarding the compromise and therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR.

Criminal Misc.

not M-41241 of 2012 -2- Pursuant to order dated 24.12.2012 report has also been received from the trial court along with statements of parties to the effect that the parties have effected compromise voluntarily.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable.

It is all the more so in matrimonial disputes.

It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225.

In the instant case, impugned FIR is result of matrimonial dispute between the parties.

The said dispute has been settled.

Petitioner No.1 - husband and respondent No.2 - wife are stated to have already filed petition for divorce by mutual consent for dissolution of their marriage.

Accordingly, it is a fit case in which FIR should be quashed.

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR Annexure P/1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including charge sheet Annexure P/2.

( L.N.Mittal ) January 31, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'

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