The Court allowed a petition for quashing an FIR based on a report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate confirming that parties voluntarily owned up a compromise before the Trial Court without coercion.
FIR No.319 dated 13.07.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 494, 506, 120-B IPC was 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
CRM-M-35665-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:14.07.2011.
M.C.Sharma and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Malik, Asstt. A.G., Haryana, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
In this petition for quashing based upon compounding, the parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court to make a statement owning up the compromise (Annexure P-2). The report dated 03.03.2011 furnished by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula is to the effect that the parties did appear before it and they voluntarily owned up the compromise (Annexure P-2) without any pressure or coercion.
Thus, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 and in the larger interest of the society, the petition shall stand allowed and FIR No.319 dated 13.07.2009, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 494, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula (Annexure P-1) shall stand quashed on account of compounding.
July 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR registered under various sections of IPC should be quashed upon voluntary compounding and a report from the Trial Court verifying the compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶14
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.C.Sharma and others
State of Haryana
another
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
