Allowed

Sunita Saini & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2013CRM-M/10606/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of an FIR involving a landlord-tenant dispute arising from eviction proceedings. Following a successful compromise between the parties, the single judge exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 62 dated 04.03.2007 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10606 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-10606 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision : May 23, 2013

¶6

Sunita Saini and another .... Petitioners Vs.

¶7

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab for respondent no. 1 – State.

¶12

Respondent no. 2 in person.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Accused Sunita Saini and her son Manoj Saini have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No. 62 dated 04.03.2007 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 454, 448 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Division No. 8, District Jalandhar, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent no. 2 – complainant.

¶16

Respondent no.2 is present in person and has been identified by ASI Jhirmal Singh, who has come to assist the State counsel.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-10606 of 2013

¶18

¶19

I have heard counsel for the parties, learned State counsel and respondent no. 2 in person and perused the case file.

¶20

Respondent n. 2 stated that he has effected compromise (Annexure P-2) with the petitioners, and therefore, he has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

¶21

In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007

¶22

(3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225 .

¶23

In the instant case, petitioner no. 1, who is mother of petitioner no. 2, was tenant in the premises, which was purchased by respondent no.2 – complainant, who then evicted petitioner no. 1 from the said premises. The impugned FIR is result of some occurrence said to have taken place after the complainant had taken possession of the premises in execution proceedings. However, the matter has now been amicably settled. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which FIR should be quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

May 23, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Sunita Saini & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Saini & Anr. v. State of Punjab & 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

Jagdish Rai etc. Vs State of Pb.Tec.

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

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana

M/S Pacific Educational Academy Vs Amit Kapoor

Babbi Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ram Karan @ Guddi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.