Petition to quash a private complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on compromise grounds. Reliance on reports stating the offence ingredients were not made out and natural cause of incident led to quashing.
Complaint No. 123 dated 16.9.2004 and further proceedings in pursuance thereof stood 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.
Crl.M.No. M- 20318 of 2012 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M.No. M- 20318 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.9.2012 ...
Amrit Lal and others
................Petitioners
vs.
Vijay Goyal and another
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Sh. Harpinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. S.S. Chandumajra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
K.C. Puri, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint No. 123 dated 16.9.2004 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 436, 427, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phul, on the basis of compromise.
The report of the trial Court was called for. The report has been received in which it is mentioned that parties have arrived at a compromise. In fact, there was relationship of landlord and tenant and the dispute arose in respect of that.
Crl.M.No. M- 20318 of 2012 - 2-
Offence under Section 436 IPC normally cannot be allowed to be compounded. However, counsel for the parties have relied upon the enquiry report Annexure P-5 placed in the file of Crl.M.No. M- 27075 of 2008, in which it is mentioned that incident of fire has occurred naturally and there is no hanky panky. Again, DSP Bhatinda, vide his report dated 20.5.2004 also reached to the conclusion that the ingredients of offence under Section 436 IPC are not made out. Said report is stated to be verified by SSP Bhatinda.
So, in the above circumstances, since it is a private complaint and it is not proved that offence under Section 436 IPC is made out, in view of compromise and in view of authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the abovesaid complaint stands quashed. Further proceedings, in pursuant to that complaint also stand quashed.
( K.C. Puri ) 5.9.2012 Judge
chugh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a private complaint under Sections 436, 427, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of compromise and absence of substantiated offence.
Whether Section 436 IPC offence allows compounding in view of reliance on enquiry reports stating the fire was natural.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶18
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amrit Lal and others
Vijay Goyal and another
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
