Present: Mr.D.S.Malwai Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1070066
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-16-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr.D.S.Malwai Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm-m no.9705 o”1. in the punjab & haryana high court at chandigarh crm-m no.9705 of 2013 date of decision :16. 08.2013 surjit singh and others ..petitioner versus state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.d.s.malwai, advocate for the petitioner. mr.neeraj sharma, aag, punjab for respondent no.1. *** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”2. to be referred to the reporter or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rekha mittal, j. mr.s.p.garg, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant /respondent no.2. reply by way of affidavit filed in court is taken on record. through the present petition filed under section 482 cr.p.c., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of fir no.186 dated 31.07.2008 for offence punishable under sections 336, 427, 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 ipc, registered at police station city barnala (section 382, 120-b ipc and section 27 of the arms act added later) and proceedings emanating davinder kumar 2013.08.20 10:50 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.9705 o”2. therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 16.08.2012 (annexure p2).arrived at between the parties. in the instant case, the fir was registered on the statement of respondent no.2/complainant kulwinder kaur wife of rajnish gupta. not the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, vide compromise deed dated 16.08.2012. the complainant / respondent no.2 kulwinder kaur wife of rajnish gupta is present in court along with her counsel. her statement was recorded in the court. an extract from her statement is quoted thus:- “fir no.186 dated 31.7.2008 for offence under sections 336, 427, 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 ipc (sections 382, 120-b ipc and 27 of the arms act added subsequently).registered at police station city barnala, was lodged by me. the matter has been compromised between me and the petitioners.there is no other accused in the case except petitioner nos.1 to 13. in view of compromise (annexure p-2).i have got no objection if the aforesaid fir and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. i have filed my affidavit in the court today which may be read as part of my statement. i have entered into compromise with the petitioners voluntarily without any coercion, threat or undue influence.” counsel for the petitioners submits that as the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of compromise, no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the criminal proceedings. counsel for the state of punjab has not disputed correctness of the contention of the petitioners that the parties have arrived at an amicable crm-m no.9705 o”3. settlement. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. indisputably, the parties voluntarily, without any coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence, have entered into a compromise and the complainant has decided not to proceed with the matter any further in the interest of their peaceful living and harmony. keeping in view the authoritative enunciation of law laid down by this court in kulwinder singh and others v. state of punjab and another, 2007(3) rcr (criminal) 1052 and hon'ble the supreme court in 'madan mohan abbot v. state of punjab', (2008).scc 58.and gian singh v. state of punjab and another, 2012(4) r.c.r.(criminal) 543, and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end. in this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and fir no.186 dated 31.07.2008 for offence punishable under sections 336, 427, 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 ipc, registered at police station city barnala (section 382, 120-b ipc and section 27 of the arms act added later) and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed. (rekha mittal) judge august 16, 2013. davinder kumar
Judgment:

CRM-M No.9705 o”

1. IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.9705 of 2013 Date of decision :

16. 08.2013 Surjit Singh and others ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.D.S.Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

*** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

REKHA MITTAL, J.

Mr.S.P.Garg, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant /respondent No.2.

Reply by way of affidavit filed in Court is taken on record.

Through the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.186 dated 31.07.2008 for offence punishable under Sections 336, 427, 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station City Barnala (Section 382, 120-B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act added later) and proceedings emanating Davinder Kumar 2013.08.20 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9705 o”

2. therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 16.08.2012 (Annexure P2).arrived at between the parties.

In the instant case, the FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No.2/complainant Kulwinder Kaur wife of Rajnish Gupta.

not the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, vide compromise deed dated 16.08.2012.

The complainant / respondent No.2 Kulwinder Kaur wife of Rajnish Gupta is present in Court along with her counsel.

Her statement was recorded in the Court.

An extract from her statement is quoted thus:- “FIR No.186 dated 31.7.2008 for offence under Sections 336, 427, 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 IPC (Sections 382, 120-B IPC and 27 of the Arms Act added subsequently).registered at Police Station City Barnala, was lodged by me.

The matter has been compromised between me and the petitioneRs.There is no other accused in the case except petitioner Nos.1 to 13.

In view of compromise (Annexure P-2).I have got no objection if the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

I have filed my affidavit in the Court today which may be read as part of my statement.

I have entered into compromise with the petitioners voluntarily without any coercion, threat or undue influence.”

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of compromise, no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Counsel for the State of Punjab has not disputed correctness of the contention of the petitioners that the parties have arrived at an amicable CRM-M No.9705 o”

3. settlement.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Indisputably, the parties voluntarily, without any coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence, have entered into a compromise and the complainant has decided not to proceed with the matter any further in the interest of their peaceful living and harmony.

Keeping in view the authoritative enunciation of law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v.

State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Madan Mohan Abbot v.

State of Punjab', (2008).SCC 58.and Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543, and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end.

In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and FIR No.186 dated 31.07.2008 for offence punishable under Sections 336, 427, 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station City Barnala (Section 382, 120-B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act added later) and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE August 16, 2013.

Davinder Kumar