Single judge allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 365, 498-A IPC based on a compromise reached after reference to alternate dispute resolution and recording of statements by the Lok Adalat.
The FIR dated 24.03.2010 and all consequent criminal proceedings are 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18215 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18215 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.8.2010
Vinod Verma and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 53 dated 24th March, 2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 365, 498-A IPC, registered at police station Raikot, District Ludhiana, and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 25th June, 2010 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 point out that after matter was referred for alternate dispute resolution , the issue was amicably settled between the parties. They submit that statements of Vinod Verma petitioner No.1 and the complainant (respondent No.2) were recorded before the Lok Adalat. They, therefore, pray that in view of same, the FIR in question be quashed.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18215 of 2010 2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The matter was referred to alternate dispute resolution by this court on July 20, 2010. It appears that thereafter statements of the parties were recorded by the Lok Adalat. After recording their statements, it was observed as under:-
“Statement of Smt. Sukhpreet Kaur-respondent No.2 and Sh. Vinod Verma-petitioner No.1 as well as their counsel have been recorded separately. Smt. Sukhpreet Kaur-respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR No.53 dated 24.03.2010 is ordered to be quashed. The file be sent to the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate orders.”
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the issue, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings.
In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of a 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
20.8.2010 'rajpal'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings ought to be quashed on the basis of a compromise arrived at through alternate dispute resolution and Lok Adalat.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings serves any useful purpose after amicable settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶19
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod Verma and others
State of Punjab and another
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
