Allowed

Anil Kumar v. Union Territory Chd and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Oct 2013CRM-M/14324/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR, the High Court accepted a compromise dated 10.12.2012 recorded after statements of both parties were obtained. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the court held that prolonging litigation served no useful purpose and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

F. I. R. No. 119 dated 29.07.2009 under Section 409 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.

Anil Kumar Vs Union Territory Chd and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-14324 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-14324 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.10.2013

Anil Kumar

....Petitioner

versus

U.T. Chandigarh and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: None for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶15

Quashing of FIR No. 119 dated 29.07.2009 under Section 409 IPC,

¶16

registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh is sought on the basis of compromise dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P2)

¶17

F.I.R has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 on the allegations that on 27.07.2009, Anil Kumar-petitioner was on office duty with respondent No. 2 and at about 1.30 P.M, Anil Kumar Driver fled away along with official Govt Jeep Bolero No. HR-2Q-0060 and he did not return back till 29.07.2009. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against petitioner.

¶18

During the pendency of the trial, the parties have amicably settled the matter, vide compromise dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P2)

¶19

In compliance of order dated 03.05.2013, respondent No. 2 got recorded his statement. Report of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has been received in this regard. As per report, respondent No. 2 got recorded his statement and stated that the department has already taken the disciplinary action against the

¶20

Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

-2-

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-14324 of 2013 (O&M)

¶23

petitioner and now he do not want ot pursue the said F.I.R as the vehicle as well as the petitioner were found to be safe. He has no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the petitioner. The compromise is without any pressure, threat, undue influence and coercion. However, the statement of the petitioner has not been recorded. Thereafter, this court vide order dated 16.05.2013 again directed to record the statement of the petitioner. In compliance of order dated 16.05.2013, statement of petitioner is recorded to the effect that he was on government duty and on that day, he was driving the vehicle HR02-Q-0060 of respondent No. 2 and on that he felt ill and therefore without informing his boss, he rushed to his house for taking medicines. His health got further deteriorated as such he cannot come back at the said place of his duty. He admitted the factum of compromise. In view of separate statements of the parties, the court is satisfied that the compromise is valid and genuine.

¶24

Consequently, in view of the status report and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 , the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another

¶25

2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 , no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

¶26

Accordingly, FIR No. 119 dated 29.07.2009 under Section 409 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of.

25.10.2013

(RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE

Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

G.Arora

Anil Kumar v. Union Territory Chd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Union Territory Chd 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

Balbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Khushinderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ramesh Rani and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs Bhoop Singh & Ors.

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

Priyanka Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.