The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC based on a settlement between parties. The court noted the complainant and State agreed to the compromise and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings to promote harmony.
The FIR No.131 dated 2.9.2007 and all subsequent proceedings were 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 AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.18695-M of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 6, 2008
KARAM SINGH ETC.
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. KS Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.131 dated 2.9.2007 under Sections 452, 324, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Kartarpur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), and subsequent proceedings.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the issues pending between the parties have now been settled. The parties have entered into a compromise.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Pritu Ram (complainant) has endorsed the fact that the compromise, indeed, has been effected. Pritu Ram (respondent No.2), as identified by Shri Amit Dhawan, Advocate, who is present in Court, has also endorsed the same fact. The application and
Criminal Misc.18695-M of 2008
2
affidavit on behalf of the respondent-complainant filed today in Court are taken on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State also states that the State has no objection to the acceptance of compromise and quashing of the FIR.
Having regard to the nature of the offences and the fact that the parties are residents of the same village and want to live in harmony, the petition is allowed. Resultantly, FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.
August 6, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings can be quashed upon the filing of a compromise between parties.
Whether the consent of the State is required to allow the quashing of the FIR given the nature of offences.
Whether allowing the petition promotes harmony between residents of the same village.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
KARAM SINGH ETC.
STATE OF HARYANA
Pritu Ram
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
