The High Court allowed a petition for quashing an FIR under Sections 420/406 IPC on the grounds of a compromise between parties, deleting one respondent's name before disposal.
The FIR No. 37 dated 10.03.2011 and all subsequent proceedings were 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.
CRM NO. M-26968 OF 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-26968 OF 2012 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 17.11.2012
M/s Pal Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. K. D. S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of respondent No.3-Yogesh Mittal be deleted from the array of respondents.
In view of his statement, the name of Yogesh Mittalrespondent No.3 is ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents.
CRM NO. M-26968 OF 2012 (O&M)
This is a petition for quashing of the FIR No. 37 dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase-I, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
Report from the trial Court has been received in which it is mentioned that parties have arrived at a compromise.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Meenakshi Mittal is also present in Court and has stated at the bar that the matter has been compromised. The matter involved is personal in nature.
So, in view of the above mentioned circumstances and in view of authority “ Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another ”, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question stands quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Disposed of.
(K. C. PURI) JUDGE
NOVEMBER 17, 2012 shalini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 420/406 IPC should be quashed in view of the compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶20
2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Pal Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
State of Haryana
Yogesh Mittal
Meenakshi Mittal
K. C. PURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
