Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2013CRM-M/10172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed by Sandeep Kumar for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The High Court allowed the petition based on a compromise between the parties, redressal to the complainant, and the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed along with its Annexure P-1.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRL. MISC. No.M-10172 OF 2013 DATE OF DECISION : 27th MAY, 2013

Sandeep Kumar

…. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & another

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.

¶12

Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Accused – Sandeep Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.08 dated 23.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, in view of compromise effected with respondent No.2-complainant, who has furnished affidavits Annexures P-2 and P-3 regarding compromise.

¶16

Reply affidavit of respondent No.2, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

CRL. MISC. No.M-10172 OF 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

¶20

file.

¶21

Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions from respondent No.2 said to be present in person in the Court, stated that parties have effected compromise regarding which respondent No.2 has furnished affidavits Annexures P-2 and P-3 and therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. Reply affidavit to the same effect has also been placed on record in the Court today.

¶22

In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225.

¶23

In the instant case, compromise has been got effected by respectables and friends. Grievance of respondent No.2 complainant has been redressed by paying him his due amount of `1,25,000/-. It is thus a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed.

¶24

Accordingly, instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P- 1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶25

27^th May, 2013 ‘raj’

¶26

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar 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

Sushil Dabra and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Chandan Dabra and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jasmeet Singh Gill & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Pankaj Shandilaya Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surbhi Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Krishna Devi and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar Bansal