Allowed

Kanwaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2012CRM-M/11487/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 196 and consequential proceedings. Quashing was granted due to a valid compromise between the parties and the presence of complainant, citing precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 196 and all criminal proceedings arising out of it registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar, are quashed.

Kanwaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M-11487 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM M-11487 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 24, 2012

Kanwaljit Singh

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. H.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. S.S. Chadha, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral7)

¶15

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 196 dated 29.12.2009, under Sections 149, 427, 452, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar, along with consequential proceedings, arising out of it on the basis of compromise dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P/2).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Bhupinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 443 to contend that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted for the offence for the reason that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused and he is not likely to support the

¶17

CRM M-11487 of 2012 2

¶18

prosecution and from other facts and circumstances available on the record, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to decline the prayer for quashing of the FIR on the ground that it would amount to be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offence.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent no.2-complainant has handed over a short reply by way of affidavit dated 24.07.2012, which is taken on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant, on instructions from the complainant, who is present in Court today, states that complainant would have no objection, if the present FIR along with consequential proceedings, arising out of it, are quashed.

¶21

Consequently, in view of compromise (Annexure P/2) and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, and judgment of this Court in Bhupinder Kaur's case (supra) no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

¶22

Present petition is allowed. FIR No. 196 dated 29.12.2009, under Sections 149, 427, 452, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar, is hereby quashed and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR also stand quashed.

¶23

[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge

¶24

July 24, 2012 vkd

Kanwaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwaljit Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Tarlok Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep @ Kalu Vs State of Haryana

Harinder Nath Vs State of Punjab (Dismissed Case)

Suraj Bhan Vs State of Haryana

Harminder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab