Allowed

Surinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2013CRM-M/10425/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed an FIR registered under Sections 420, 167, and 120-B IPC for a property dispute. Relying on inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the precedent of Kulwinder Singh, the Court held that the compromise between the accused and the two aggrieved individuals warranted quashing the case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No.95 dated 3.11.2012 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.

Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M No.10425 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.10425 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 30.5.2013

¶6

Surinder Singh and another

¶7

...... Petitioners

¶8

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

...... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present : Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Roopam Aggarwal, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶15

¶16

L.N.MITTAL, J.

¶17

Accused Surinder Singh and Balkar Singh have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short `Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.95 dated 3.11.2012 under Sections 420, 167, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondents No.2 and 3, who have also furnished their affidavits (Annexure P-3 collectively) regarding the compromise.

¶18

Reply/affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 filed today in Court, are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

¶20

CRM-M No.10425 of 2013

¶21

-2-

¶22

the case file.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, on instructions from respondents No.2 and 3, said to be present in person in Court, stated that the parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-2) for which respondents No.2 and 3 have furnished their affidavits (Annexure P-3 collectively) and therefore, respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. Reply/affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 to the same effect have also been placed on record in the Court today.

¶24

In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed 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 the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) Law Herald 2225.

¶25

In the instant case, there was property dispute between the parties giving rise to the impugned FIR. The said property dispute has been amicably settled. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which the FIR should be quashed so that the parties may live in peace and harmony.

¶26

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed.

¶27

( L.N.Mittal ) Judge

¶28

30.5.2013 Meenu

Surinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Pardeep Vs State of Haryana

Gurbhej Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Balraj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Happy Vs State of Haryana

Rakesh Kumar Alias Sharma Vs State of Punjab

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