Single Judge High Court quashed FIR under s. 304-A IPC u/s 13(1)(a) CPC 1973 on account of private settlement and compensation paid. Pending private complaint will not be affected as it is a separate proceeding.
FIR No.145 dated 08.11.2009 under Section 304-A IPC is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-2521 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-2521 of 2011 Date of decision:-20.5.2011
Rishi Kapur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.145 dated 08.11.2009 under Section 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise.
On 08.11.2009 the complainant-respondent No.2 alongwith Gobind were going to Khambra on motor-cycle, which was being driven by Gobind. When they reached near Adda Tajpur at that time Gobind had a telephone call due to which he stopped the motor-cycle and parked the same on the left side of the road and started attending the telephone call by standing on kachha road. Meanwhile, a black colour Indica Car came from Lambra at a very high speed and struck in straight to the motor-cycle of Gobind and due to which Gobind took high jump and fell on the front wind screen of the car. Gobind died on the spot.
Criminal Misc. No. M-2521 of 2011
-2-
In the above background the FIR was registered.
Due to intervention of Panchayat, the matter was compromised and petitioner was agreed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The written compromise was effected between the parties on 16.3.2010.
In compliance of order dated 27.1.2011 status report has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. Statement of complainant Kuldeep Singh Gill has been recorded that he has compromised the matter and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Father of deceased Gobind namely Lakhwinder Singh is present in the Court and identified by his counsel. Respondent No.2 has tendered the affidavit of Lakhwinder Singh, father of the deceased. As per this affidavit, he has received Rs.70,000/from the petitioner and the matter has been compromised. The case of MACT is also pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
In the interest of justice, petitioner is directed to give Rs.20,000/as compensation to father of the deceased.
Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise.
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.145 dated 08.11.2009 under Section 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
Criminal Misc. No. M-2521 of 2011
-3-
The petition under MACT, which is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar will not be bound by this compromise effected by father of the deceased as this is only qua quashing of the aforesaid FIR.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
May 20, 2011 Vijay Asija
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR u/s 304-A IPC can be quashed in view of settlement between parties.
Whether the compromise affects the pending private complaint under MACT.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶23
2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶23
2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rishi Kapur
State of Punjab
Kuldeep Singh Gill
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
