Present: Mr.R.S.Dadwal Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090571
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-18-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr.R.S.Dadwal Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm-m no.14018 of 2012 1 in the punjab & haryana high court at chandigarh crm-m no.14018 of 2012 date of decision : 18.09.2013 parveen kumar and others ..petitioners versus state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.r.s.dadwal, advocate for the petitioners.mr.neeraj sharma, aag, punjab. rekha mittal, j.(oral) mr.p.s.punia, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant / respondent no.2. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of fir no.130 dated 27.06.2010, under sections 406, 498-a ipc, registered at police station raikot, district ludhiana on the basis of compromise dated 30.04.2012 (annexure p2) effected between the parties. the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 22.05.2012 to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise. a report has been submitted by the trial court / judicial magistrate ist class, jagraon, wherein it has been reported that the statements of the petitioners and complainant aman lata have been recorded and the statements made by the parties in the court reveal that they davinder kumar 2013.09.23 10:39 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.14018 of 2012 2 have voluntarily entered into a compromise with an intention to live in peace and harmony. counsel for respondent no.2 has conceded to the fact that parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise and the complainant/ respondent no.2 has got no objection if the aforesaid fir and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed. counsel for the state has not disputed correctness of assertions of the petitioners and respondent no.2 that the matter has been settled by way of compromise between the parties. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. there is nothing on record to doubt correctness of the compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony. the present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise, in view of the decision of hon'ble the supreme court of india in gian singh v. state of punjab and another, 2012(4) r.c.r.(criminal) 543. in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and fir no.130 dated 27.06.2010, under sections 406, 498-a ipc, registered at police station raikot, district ludhiana and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.(rekha mittal) judge september 18, 2013. davinder kumar
Judgment:

CRM-M No.14018 of 2012 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.14018 of 2012 Date of decision : 18.09.2013 Parveen Kumar and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.R.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab.

REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) Mr.P.S.Punia, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant / respondent No.2.

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.130 dated 27.06.2010, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana on the basis of compromise dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure P2) effected between the parties.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 22.05.2012 to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise.

A report has been submitted by the trial Court / Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, wherein it has been reported that the statements of the petitioners and complainant Aman Lata have been recorded and the statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they Davinder Kumar 2013.09.23 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.14018 of 2012 2 have voluntarily entered into a compromise with an intention to live in peace and harmony.

Counsel for respondent No.2 has conceded to the fact that parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise and the complainant/ respondent No.2 has got no objection if the aforesaid FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

Counsel for the State has not disputed correctness of assertions of the petitioners and respondent No.2 that the matter has been settled by way of compromise between the parties.

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

There is nothing on record to doubt correctness of the compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony.

The present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and FIR No.130 dated 27.06.2010, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioneRs.(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE September 18, 2013.

Davinder Kumar