Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR. Court allowed the petition as a compromise was effected between co-villagers, and continuation of proceedings was deemed pointless.
FIR No.86 dated 6.3.2008 is hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-15058 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 06, 2008
Kewal Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
The State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. H.S. Kharbanda, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.86 dated 6.3.2008 lodged for commission of offences under Sections 452, 354 and 506 IPC with Police Station, Sadar, Kotkapura.
Contention of the learned counsel is that petitioner and respondent No.2 were co-villagers. Certain disputes arose whereupon FIR came to be lodged. Now that compromise has been effected, respondent No.2complainant has sworn an affidavit which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. It has specifically
Crl. Misc. No.M-15058 of 2008 [2]
been stated in the affidavit that the complainant does not want to proceed with the case.
Jaswinder Kaur, respondent No.2-
complainant, as identified by Mr. H.S. Kharbanda, Advocate, is present in person and has also endorsed the factum of compromise.
Having regard to the fact that continuance of proceedings would not serve any purpose in law and also because the complainant has made a statement as noticed above, this petition is allowed. Even learned counsel for the respondent State has no objection to the quashing of FIR in view of the compromise.
Resultantly, FIR No.86 dated 6.3.2008 lodged for commission of offences under Sections 452, 354 and 506 IPC with Police Station, Sadar, Kotkapura, is hereby quashed.
(AJAI LAMBA) August 06, 2008 JUDGE
avin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR should be quashed in view of compromise between parties.
Whether continuance of criminal proceedings would serve any purpose in law given the compromise.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kewal Singh
The State of Punjab
Jaswinder Kaur
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
