The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a proved compromise between parties where continuation of criminal proceedings served no useful purpose.
The FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom 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.
CRM No. M-10342 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-10342 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2009
Sunil Kumar and another
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Gupta, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.36 dated 5th February, 2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Reply by way of affidavit of the complainant- respondent No.2 has been filed. The same has been taken on record. The State has also filed reply which has also been taken on record. The Complainant/ respondent No.2 is present in Court. She is duly identified by her counsel. In her reply she has admitted the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. She states that she has
CRM No. M-10342 of 2009 2
no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the fact that the parties have settled the dispute, the State would not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR.
The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings, which would be a futile exercise.
In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full
Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.
Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
May 19, 2009 'rajpal'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR and subsequent proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of a compromise reached between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶18
_Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052._
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar
another
State of Haryana
another
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
