Allowed

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2011CRM-M/17679/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings registered under Sections 66A and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, based on a compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 11 dated 10.02.2011 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Jatinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-17679 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-17679 of 2011 Date of decision : 24.08.2011

¶5

Jatinder Singh @ Banti

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

V/s

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶14

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 11 dated 10.02.2011 registered under Sections 66A, 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station City Abohar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. They submit that wife of respondent No. 2 is present in court today and has been duly identified by Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. They have placed on record affidavit of Paramjit Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh (respondent No. 2) which is taken on record as mark ‘A’ admitting therein the factum of

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-17679 of 2011

¶18

¶19

compromise arrived at between the parties. It has been further stated in the said affidavit that Paramjit Kaur (wife of respondent No. 2) has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of compromise, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Crl.) 1052.

¶22

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶23

August 24, 2011 Ajay

¶24

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Singh and Ors. 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

Rameshwar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ashish Gupta Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rafiq Mohd. and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kala Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Rekha Rani and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Madhu Khosla & Anr. Vs P.S. Koak