Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2010CRM-M/33348/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 179 under Sections 406/498-A IPC based on an affidavit-recorded compromise between the parties, relying on the plea that no useful purpose would be served by continuing criminal proceedings after amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 179 dated 16.05.2010 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs State of Punjab and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-33348 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-33348 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.12.2010

Sanjeev Kumar Jain

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Punjab and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab.

¶13

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

¶14

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶15

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 179 dated 16.05.2010 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the entire dispute has been amicably settled. Respondent No. 2/complainant is present in court today. She is duly identified by her counsel. She has filed an affidavit, which is taken on record as Mark 'A' admitting therein the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. It has been further stated in the affidavit that complainant has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-33348 of 2010

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of compromise, the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question.

¶20

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 by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in the light of Full Bench judgment 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

December 14, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE

Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Jain 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

Kartar Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gora Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Liyakat Ali and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Inder Mohan Vs State of Punjab