Allowed

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2013CRM-M/10673/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC. The court held that since the petitioner and prosecutrix had married the day after the FIR was lodged, the petition was allowed on the basis of compromise.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No. 20 dated 29.01.2013 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM M-10673 of 2013

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-10673 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 10, 2013.

¶5

Gurpreet Singh

¶6

.......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Mr. Deepak Garg, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. C.S. Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.20 dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 363, 366, 376 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, as the petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnized the marriage.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶18

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶19

CRM M-10673 of 2013

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

even as per version in the FIR, consent was given by the prosecutrix for having physical relation with petitioner on the promise of marriage and however, later on he refused to marry. Further contended that both are major and however, they have since married on 30.01.2013 i.e. just on the next day of lodging this FIR.

¶22

Respondent No.2 – complainant has also come present and filed short reply by way of affidavit admitting this fact and stated that she is having no objection if the FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

¶23

It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from Head Constable Resham Singh that petitioner and prosecutrix had married just on the next day of lodging the FIR and case is still at the stage of investigation and hence, it is contended that in view of the fact that marriage was performed just on the second day of lodging this FIR, State is having no objection if the present petition is accepted.

¶24

In appropriate cases FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising 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 v. State of Punjab , 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 .

¶25

Hence, in view of these facts and in the interest of harmonious relations between petitioner and respondent No.2, who have already performed marriage, the present petition is allowed and the

¶26

CRM M-10673 of 2013

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

impugned FIR No. 20 dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 363, 366, 376 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioner Gurpreet Singh is, hereby, quashed.

¶29

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 10, 2013. JUDGE Sachin M.

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet 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

Surjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Arun Son of Badlu Ram Vs State of Haryana

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kamal Rani and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sahab Din Vs Punjab Financial Corporation