Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 420 IPC based on compromise. Counsel suggested compounding at trial court. Petition in a different criminal miscellaneous number was dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-2210 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-2210 of 2012 Date of decision:-28.02.2012
Charanjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. K.R. Dhawan, Advocate for the complainant.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI J.(Oral)
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.40 dated 24.2.2007, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, on the basis of compromise.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge under Section 420 IPC has been framed against the petitioner and the case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. He further submits that since the offence under Section
Criminal Misc. No. M-2210 of 2012
-2-
420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court, therefore, he may be permitted to file an application before the learned trial court for compounding the offence.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Balraj Kumar Batra admits the factum of compromise.
In views of the above, the Criminal Misc. No. M-2230 of 2012 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the learned trial court for compounding the offence. On doing so, the learned trial court will allow the parties to compound the offence and shall dispose of the case in accordance with law.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid observations.
February 28, 2012 ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing of FIR under Section 420 IPC is maintainable as the case is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.
Charanjit Singh
State of Punjab
Balraj Kumar Batra
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
