Allowed

Rattan Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2011CRM-M/18683/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition to quash an FIR registered under Section 420 IPC. The court accepted a compromise between the parties and the absence of objection from the State, relying on a Full Bench decision to quash non-compoundable offences to restore peace.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.220 dated 03.10.2010 under Section 420 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.

Rattan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM No.M-18683 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-18683 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2011

¶5

Rattan Singh and another

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others ..... Respondent

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶10

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶13

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶14

Counsel for respondent No.1 has filed reply and copy has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

Short affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3. The complainant Raj Pal has been identified by the Investigating Officer Daljit Singh ASI and also by his counsel Mr. Vikas Lochab.

¶16

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.220 dated 03.10.2010 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Madhuban District Karnal on the basis of compromise dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-2).

¶17

I have enquired from the complainant (respondent No.2) about the compromise to which he has submitted that the same has been effected on his free will.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence is under

¶19

CRM No.M-18683 of 2011 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

Section 420 IPC which is compoundable in terms of Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that even otherwise, Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 , has allowed quashing even of a non-compoundable offence in order to bring harmony and peace between the parties.

¶22

Counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant has submitted that they have no objection in this regard.

¶23

In view thereof, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.220 dated 03.10.2010 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Madhuban District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶24

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶25

25.08.2011 manju

Rattan Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rattan Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & 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

Roshan Lal Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumari Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surender Pal @ Babli Vs State of Haryana

Satpal Singh @ Gaggu Vs State of Punjab