Allowed

M.R. Chauhan and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Oct 2011CRM-M/23225/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court allowed the quashing of a private complaint. Upon verifying that the parties had voluntarily entered into a mutual compromise and the dispute was resolved, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings and quashed the complaint and subsequent actions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No. 61 of 2008 and all subsequent proceedings arising out of it were quashed.

M.R. Chauhan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-23225 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-23225 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: October 3, 2011

¶5

M.R. Chauhan & others .....Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana & another ....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

PRESENT: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Deepak Girotara, Asstt. AG, Haryana for the State.

¶11

Mr. Abhijat Gaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari against the petitioners under Sections 323/341/342/367/506, 216 & 217 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act. As per the petitioners, this was on account of some dispute in respect of employment of complainant-respondent No.2. The copy of the complaint is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The complainant has already examined interested witnesses in the preliminary evidence and on the basis thereof, the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 323/341/342/367/506, 216 & 217 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act

¶15

Criminal Misc. No.M-23225 of 2011(O&M) -2-

¶16

by order dated 27.1.2011. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have been wrongly summoned without appreciating allegations and also the fact that the allegations are vague and not prima facie established.

¶17

During the pendency of the case, the parties have entered into mutual compromise and have amicably resolved their dispute voluntarily without any pressure. The parties have entered into a written compromise on 16.7.2011 in the presence of the respectables and have decided to resolve the dispute between them. Copy of the mutual compromise has also been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The complainant has also filed an affidavit dated 16.7.2011 duly attested by the Notary. On this basis, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint.

¶18

Notice was issued. Counsel for the respondentcomplainant has appeared. He has placed before me a copy of the reply, which is taken on record. State counsel also hands over a copy of reply on behalf of the State. The same is also taken on record.

¶19

Respondent No.2-complainant has conceded that a compromise has been effected between him and the petitioner. He has also referred to copy of compromise, which is Annexure P-3. Since the dispute has been resolved, the respondentcomplainant prays that summoning order may be set aside.

¶20

In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State by Mahender Singh Rana, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rewari, it is

¶21

Criminal Misc. No.M-23225 of 2011(O&M)

¶22

-3-

¶23

pointed out that the case arises out of private complaint filed by respondent No.2. Otherwise the facts pleaded in the petition are denied.

¶24

Respondent No.2 has admitted the compromise. Even respondent No.2-complainant is present in person. I have spoken to him. He has clearly stated that he has entered into compromise with the petitioner without any pressure. He further says that he would not have any objection if the complaint and present proceedings arising out of it are quashed.

¶25

In my view, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue. Ultimately the outcome of the trial is a foregone conclusion and it is likely to end in acquittal on the basis of compromise. It would only be a wastage of time of the Court for conducting the further proceedings.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No.61 of 2008 under 323/341/342/367/506, 216 & 217 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby quashed. For this, this Court would have ample power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 .

¶27

October 03, 2011 monika

¶28

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

M.R. Chauhan and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Chauhan and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

Kamal Kakkar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Alka Sharma and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kapil Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Nirmal Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Virender Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Prem Hans Kumar Vs Monika Rattan and Ors.