Allowed

M/S Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Seema Rathour Gill

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2012CRM-M/11340/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed a complaint under Section 23 of the Maternity Benefits Act and relevant summoning orders. The Court found that the matter between the insurer and the employee had been amiably settled, with compensation paid and items returned, leaving no adiour concern.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the complaint under Section 23 of the Maternity Benefits Act, the summoning order, and all other proceedings therefrom are quashed.

M/S Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Seema… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M 11340 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM M 11340 of 2011 Date of decision: 02.02.2012

¶4

M/s Shriram Life Insurance Company Limited ........ Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mrs. Seema Rathour .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. B S Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Ms Balpreet Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. APS Shergill, Advocate for the respondent

¶11

-.-

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶14

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶16

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of complaint No. 21523 of 2010 dated 0208.2010 (P6) titled as Mrs. Seema Rathour Gill v. M/s Shriram Life Insurance Company Limited and others under Section 23 of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and the summoning order dated 15.11.2010 (P7) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and all other proceedings arising therefrom.

¶17

CRM M 11340 of 2011 2

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, states that the matter has been compromised and in pursuance to the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by this Court, the petitioner company has since handed over a draft of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and the complainant has duly received the same. Complainant/Respondent too has handed over the laptop to the company provided by it. Statements of both the parties have been recorded before the JMIC, Chandigarh. The said statements have also been placed on record. The only issue remains qua the Projector.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions to state before this Court that the Company-petitioner has decided to give up the dispute qua the Projector and shall not insist upon the same.

¶20

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Balpreet Kaur Sidhu, Advocate appearing on behalf the complainant/respondent submits that the complainant/respondent too has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and also taking into consideration the statements made before this Court as well as before the JMIC, Chandigarh, this court has no doubt that the matter has been amiably settled between the parties.

¶22

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and complaint No. 21523 of 2010 dated 0208.2010 (P6) titled as Mrs. Seema Rathour Gill v. M/s Shriram Life Insurance Company Limited and others under Section 23 of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and the summoning order dated 15.11.2010 (P7) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and all other proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶23

CRM M 11340 of 2011 3

¶24

Accordingly, the petitioner shall not make any further claim qua the Projector from the respondents.

¶25

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶26

02.02.2012 mohan

M/S Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Seema Rathour Gill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Seema Rathour Gill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Arora and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharambir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Golu Singh & Ors,. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Chetak Singh @ Chintu Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunita Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vakil and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.