Allowed

Gulshan and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2009CRM-M/25990/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR registered for IPC offences upon a compromise between the parties. Citing the compoundable nature of the offences and applicable precedent, the court held that further proceedings were an exercise in futility, granting the petition for quashing.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 4 dated 2.1.2007 and all consequential proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, are hereby quashed.

Gulshan and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶2

CRM-M 25990 of 2009 Decided on Oct 09,2009.

¶3

Gulshan and another -- Petitioners

¶4

State of Punjab and another --Respondents

¶5

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶6

Present: Mr.L.M. Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶7

Mrs.Rajni Gupta,Addl.A.G.Punjab.

¶8

Mr.Veneet Sharma,Advocate, for respondent No.2/complainant.

¶9

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:

¶10

This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), for quashing FIR No. 4 dated 02.1.2007, registered under Sections 447,380,427,511 IPC, at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure P6).

¶11

Both the petitioners namely, Gulshan and Boby, are present in Court who are identified by Mr.L.M.Gulati,Advocate, appearing on their behalf. Similarly, respondent No.2 (Brij Mohan Sharma) is also present in the Court, who has been identified by Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate appearing on his behalf. I have

¶12

CRM-M 25990 of 2009 -2-

¶13

asked both petitioners as well as respondent No.2 about the compromise to which all of them said in unison that compromise has been effected between them on 18.1.2007, and respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR is quashed on the basis of the said compromise.

¶14

According to Section 320 Cr.P.C, offences under Sections 379, 427,447 IPC are compoundable without intervention of the Court. The parties have entered into compromise and as such, there is no dispute left which is to be resolved by the Court.

¶15

In view of the above, the proceedings before the Court of

¶16

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, in pursuance of the challan having been filed in FIR No.4 dated 2.1.2007, referred to above, would be an exercise in futility keeping in view the fact that first hour of justice is the hour of compromise and also the decision in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 2225. the present petition is allowed. FIR No.4 dated 2.1.2007 referred to above as well as all the proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, are hereby quashed.

¶17

Oct 09,2009 RR

¶18

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

Gulshan and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshan and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karamjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Subhash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vikas Kumar Alias Vikki and Anr. Vs State of Haryana