Allowed

Pardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2012CRM-M/7725/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special jurisdiction petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings. The court found a valid compromise was reached and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 14 dated 16.2.2012 registered under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC at Police Station Maloud, District Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner.

Pardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-7725 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-7725 of 2012 Date of decision:6.7.2012

Pardeep Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶12

Mr.MS Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2- complainant

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the FIR No.14 dated 16.2.2012 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 452, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Maloud, District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise Annexure P- 2, reached between the parties.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Both the parties are present in person.

¶18

In pursuance of the order dated 16.3.2012 passed by this Court,

¶19

the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ludhiana has sent her report alongwith the statements of the parties. In her statement, complainant Jasbir

¶20

CRM No.M-7725 of 2012 2

¶21

Kaur has stated that the matter has been compromised and as such, she has no objection if the FIR in question and the consequent proceedings be quashed. A compromise deed dated 22.2.2012 has already been appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, wherein also the factum of compromise has been admitted by the parties.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant submits that the complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed as the matter has been compromised.

¶23

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.

¶24

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.14 dated 16.2.2012 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 452, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Maloud, District Ludhiana and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶25

6.7.2012

¶26

gsv

¶27

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Pardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Singh 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

Appar Singh Vs Punjab State

Sudarshan Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jatinder Pal Vs Director State Transport Punjab SEC-17 Chandigarh and Anr.

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Shashi Devi @ Jain and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.