Allowed

Ravi Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2009CRM-M/1372/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR based on a compromise. The State and a respondent agreed the settlement was in their interest and no purpose would be served by continuing proceedings. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The FIR dated 03.03.2006 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Ravi Arora Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc No. M-1372 of 2009 Date of decision : 05.05.2009

Ravi Arora

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana and Others

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana.

¶11

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶12

Ms. Shiv Charan kaur, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶13

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶14

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 53 dated 03.03.2006 registered under Sections 420, 406, 427, 120-B IPC at Police Station Ambala City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 have pointed out that both the parties are present in Court today. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in which it has been stated that petitioner and respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that he has no interest in pursuing the FIR in question and thus, the same be quashed on the basis of compromise. The said affidavit is taken on record as mark 'A'.

¶16

Crl. Misc No. M-1372 of 2009

¶17

-2-

¶18

Learned counsel for the State submits that in case there is compromise arrived at between the parties, the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question.

¶19

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.

¶20

In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom 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.

¶21

Resultantly the present petition is allowed, the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶22

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶23

05.05.2009 Ajay

Ravi Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirdosh Kumar Vs Pacific Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Jatinder Singh Sohi Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab