Allowed

Naresh Kumar Khurana v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2012CRM-M/12929/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under Section 420 IPC. Based on a valid compromise and citing Kulwinder Singh, the Court held no useful purpose in continuing the proceedings and quashed them qua the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.168 under Section 420 IPC and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner were quashed.

Naresh Kumar Khurana Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-12929 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-12929 of 2012 Date of decision: 26.7.2012

Naresh Kumar Khurana

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Ms.Ruchi Sekhari, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶13

Mr.Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶14

¶15

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the FIR No.168 dated 15.10.2011, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

The grounds pleaded are that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue. In this regard a compromise deed dated 30.6.2012 has been executed between the parties, wherein it is stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and both the parties undertake to withdraw all the litigation pending

¶19

CRM No.M-12929 of 2012 2

¶20

against each other. Copy of the compromise deed dated 30.6.2012 is taken on record as Mark 'A'. The complainant, who is present in person has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed as the matter has been compromised between us.

¶21

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in re: Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 1052, the Court is competent to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.168 dated 15.10.2011, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶22

However, in case the compromise is not honoured by either of the parties, the aggrieved shall be at liberty to revive the petition.

¶23

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶24

26.7.2012 gsv

Naresh Kumar Khurana v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar Khurana 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

Manjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab

Seema Vs State of Haryana

Tarlochan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Tara Chand Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Padam Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana