Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging a compromised settlement. The High Court held the petition not maintainable as the trial had commenced and the complainant denied voluntary execution of the compromise document.
Petition for quashing of FIR was dismissed.
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.
CRM-M-12498-2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12498-2010 (O&M). Date of decision: September 18, 2012.
Sushil Kumar
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG., Haryana.
Mr.Vikram Punia, Adv., for respondent No.2.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.36 dated 9.7.2008, under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, registered at the instance of respondent No.2, by filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonepat.
The maintainability of the petition has been questioned by raising the plea that after framing of charges, the complainant has already been examined in the Court.
Counsel for the petitioner claims that the matter had been compromised and the complainant had on 20.9.2007, signed a compromise and executed an affidavit but subsequently she resiled from the terms of the compromise and got the FIR registered.
The petition is not maintainable in view of the status
...1
CRM-M-12498-2010 (O&M)
of the trial. It will be open to raise all the pleas at opportune time because the document dated 20.9.2007, strongly relied upon by the petitioner has been denied to have been executed voluntarily by taking up a plea in the reply that the signatures of the complainant had been obtained forcibly on blank papers.
Without expression of any opinion on the allegations in the complaint and the defence plea raised by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the grounds for quashing do not fall within the parametres laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604.
The petition is dismissed.
Dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to raise and establish the defence pleas and seek acquittal if warranted in accordance with law on appreciation of evidence.
(M.M.S. BEDI) September 18, 2012. JUDGE rka
...2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for quashing of FIR is maintainable after framing of charges and examination of the complainant in court.
Whether the alleged compromise executed by the complainant provides grounds for quashing the FIR before the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors.Doubted¶20
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
Sushil Kumar
State of Haryana
Another
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
