Present: Mr. S.S.Tiwana Advocate Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1060041
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-29-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. S.S.Tiwana Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm not m-12346 of 2013 date of decision:29. 05.2013 satnam singh ...petitioner versus state of punjab and another ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice l.n.mittal present: mr.s.s.tiwana, advocate for the petitioner. mr.roopam aggarwal, dag, punjab for respondent no.1. mr.arvinder singh, advocate for respondent no.2. ***** l.n.mittal, j.(oral) accused satnam singh has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (in short – cr.p.c.) for quashing fir no.29 dated 13.03.2013 (annexure p-1).under section 420 of the indian penal code (in short – ipc).registered at police station sadar nabha, in view of compromise (annexure p-2) effected with respondent no.2 – complainant, who has also furnished affidavit (annexure p-3) regarding the compromise. reply by way of affidavit of respondent no.2 – complainant, filed today in court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant, on instructions from respondent no.2, said to be present in person in the court, stated that parties have effected compromise (annexure p-2).for which respondent no.2 has also furnished affidavit (annexure p-3).and crm not m-12346 of 2013 -2- therefore, respondent no.2 has no objection if the impugned fir is quashed. reply by way of affidavit of respondent no.2 to the same effect has also been placed on record in the court today. in appropriate cases, fir can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under section 482 cr.p.c., even if the offences are not compoundable. it was so held by full bench of this court in case of kulwinder singh versus state of punjab reported as 2007 (3) law herald (punjab and haryana) 2225. in the instant case, the petitioner is real brother of deceased husband of respondent no.2/complainant. respondent no.2 is not residing at parental village. panchayats of villages of both the parties have got the compromise effected. claim of respondent no.2 has been satisfied by paying her requisite amount and share in the land and her grievance has been redressed. it is, accordingly, a fit case in which fir should be quashed so that the parties may live in peace and harmony. resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned fir annexure p-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 29.05.2013 (l.n.mittal) sonia judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-12346 of 2013 Date of decision:

29. 05.2013 Satnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr.S.S.Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Roopam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr.Arvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***** L.N.MITTAL, J.(Oral) Accused Satnam Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.29 dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure P-1).under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC).registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent No.2 – complainant, who has also furnished affidavit (Annexure P-3) regarding the compromise.

Reply by way of affidavit of respondent no.2 – complainant, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

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

Counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant, on instructions from respondent no.2, said to be present in person in the Court, stated that parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-2).for which respondent no.2 has also furnished affidavit (Annexure P-3).and CRM not M-12346 of 2013 -2- therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

Reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2 to the same effect has also been placed on record in the Court today.

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

It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225.

In the instant case, the petitioner is real brother of deceased husband of respondent No.2/complainant.

Respondent No.2 is not residing at parental village.

Panchayats of villages of both the parties have got the compromise effected.

Claim of respondent No.2 has been satisfied by paying her requisite amount and share in the land and her grievance has been redressed.

It is, accordingly, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed so that the parties may live in peace and harmony.

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

29.05.2013 (L.N.Mittal) sonia Judge