Disposed

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 May 2011CRM-M/14681/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a FIR and summons for offences including IPC and SC/ST Act sections. The Court directed that if a complete compromise is reached, the trial court may record it and permit withdrawal of the complaint citing Kulwinder Singh.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to trial court to record compromise and permit withdrawal if all accused reach a full compromise.

Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-14681 of 2011

¶2

-: 1 :-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-14681 of 2011 Date of decision: May 25, 2011.

¶5

Raj Kumar and another

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab & others

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

Present: Shri Shiv Raj Angi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Shri B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

Shri Surinder Singh Virk, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6.

¶14

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):

¶15

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No.199-2-23.11.2004, titled as “Nirmala Kumari v. Raj Kumar and others”, as well as the order dated 24.6.2010, Annexure -2, vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for offences under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506, 149, 380 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in that complaint.

¶16

Shri Shivraj Angi, Counsel for the petitioners, has stated at the bar that the next date fixed for presence of the accused is 6.6.2011.

¶17

Mani Ram – respondent No.3, husband of complainant –

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-14681 of 2011 -: 2 :-

¶19

Nirmala Kumari, had executed an agreement to sell a house in his possession to accused petitioner No.1 – Raj Kumar. For alleged failure of Raj Kumar to pay the balance amount as per the agreement to sell, a dispute arose between the parties. On 17.9.2003 at about 4 p.m., complainant Nirmala Kumari along with her husband Mani Ram, son Om Parkash and daughter-in-law Monika were talking while sitting in their house. Six persons, namely, Raj Kumar, Ramesh Kumari, Hem Singh, Raj Krishan, Kamla Rani and ASI Puran Singh came to their house and threw away the household articles. They are also stated to have uttered derogatory words against the caste of the petitioners. For the offence of trespass, criminal intimidation (Sections 448 and 506 IPC) and breach of provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the above stated six accused have been summoned to stand trial.

¶20

The present petition has been filed only on behalf of two accused, namely, Raj Kumar and his wife Ramesh Kumari. This Court has observed that a partial compromise cannot be taken into consideration. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioners, states that efforts are being made to arrive at a compromise with other accused also.

¶21

Shri Virk, Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5, has stated that the affidavits in support of the compromise shall be filed in the trial court on the next date of hearing.

¶22

In case the accused-petitioners present the compromise deed along with affidavits of the witnesses – respondents No.2 to 5 before the trial court on the next date of hearing, the trial court shall record the factum of compromise and in case it is satisfied that the compromise has indeed been arrived at, considering the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh

¶23

Crl. Misc. No.M-14681 of 2011

¶24

-: 3 :-

¶25

and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and the fact that the parties intend to promote harmony and ever-lasting peace, the trial court may permit the complainant and the witnesses to withdraw the complaint. However, it is made clear that the compromise should be effected between all concerned.

¶26

With the observations made above, the petition is disposed of.

¶27

May 25, 2011. kadyan

¶28

[ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] Judge

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab 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

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Atul Nibber Vs State of Haryana