This is a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, relying on the Full Bench judgment in Kulwinder Singh.
The FIR No.90 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-17707 of 2011
DATE OF DECISION: August 23, 2011
Rafiq Mohd. @ Brusil and others
…..Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.JJS Uppal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
Mr.Anil Kumar Garg, 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.90 dated 14.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered under sections
325/323/506/34 IPC and section 452 IPC (added later on) at police station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur together with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
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 respondent No.2 is present in court today and has been duly identified by her counsel Mr.Anil Kumar Garg. They have placed on record affidavit of Rinki Sood (respondent No.2) which is taken on
Crl.Misc.No.M-17707 of 2011
- 2 -
record as Mark ‘A’ admitting therein the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. It has further been stated in the affidavit that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that in view of compromise, the impugned jFIR deserves to be quashed.
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.
The compromise is in the interest of 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 .
Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
August 23, 2011 pc
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR and subsequent proceedings can be quashed in light of a compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of PunjabReferred¶21
Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rafiq Mohd. @ Brusil and others
State of Punjab
Respondent No.2
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
