Allowed

Boota Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2009CRM-M/14560/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition seeks quashing of an FIR under section 306 IPC based on a post-death compromise. The court held that the FIR was instigated by relatives despite initial inquest findings of innocence and quashed it along with consequent proceedings relying on section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 49 dated 14.4.2009 under section 306 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Boota Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-14560 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision : September 16, 2009

¶4

Boota Singh and others

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶10

Present : Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for respondent no. 1

¶11

Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4

¶12

Respondent no. 2 since dead

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

Boota Singh and four others have filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 49 dated 14.4.2009, under section 306 IPC, Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P/1) in view of compromise effected with complainant-respondent No. 2 Pardeep Kumar, who has also furnished affidavit dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P/2) regarding the compromise.

¶15

On 26.5.2009, respondent no. 2 appeared through counsel and filed reply by way of affidavit dated 26.5.2009 reiterating the compromise affidavit, Annexure P/2. It has been stated in affidavit, Annexure P/2 by

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M-14560 of 2009

¶17

-2-

¶18

Pardeep Kumar that his daughter Shalu who was married with petitioner no. 3, eight years ago in the year 2001 had died on 13.4.2009. On the same day, Pardeep Kumar, his wife, sons and other relatives went to Sirhind and made statements in inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. stating that they had no doubt against any one regarding death of Shalu. However, on the instigation of neighbours and relatives, Pardeep Kumar got recorded impugned FIR on 14.4.2009 against the petitioners. It has been affirmed that the FIR be quashed. Similar statement has been made in reply affidavit dated 26.5.2009.

¶19

In view of death of Pardeep Kumar, his wife Seema and son Vishal Kumar have been impleaded as respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the instant petition. Affidavits of respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed today in Court are taken on record. In these affidavits, respondent nos. 3 and 4 have also made similar statements as made by Pardeep Kumar in his affidavit dated 20.5.2009 read with reply affidavit dated 26.5.2009. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 have affirmed in the affidavits that the FIR be quashed. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4, on instructions from respondent nos. 3 and 4, who are also present in person in Court, also makes similar statement.

¶20

In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab , 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225.

¶21

In the instant case, in inquest proceedings the complainant and other relatives of the deceased made statements that they had no doubt

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. M-14560 of 2009

¶23

-3-

¶24

against anybody regarding death of Shalu. State of Punjab in its reply has also stated this fact. However, FIR was lodged on the next day. It has been stated by the complainant in his affidavit that the FIR was lodged on the instigation of the relatives and neighbours and that the petitioners are innocent. Similar statements have been made by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in their reply-affidavits. It is, accordingly, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 49 dated 14.4.2009, under section 306 IPC, Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P/1) is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶26

September 16, 2009 ' dalbir'

Boota Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boota Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

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

Balvir Singh @ Dani Vs State of Punjab

Gulshan Khurana Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Chhaju Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sidh Giri Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab