The High Court dismissed a petition for quashing an FIR under Sections 420/120-B IPC on the ground that the alleged compromise between the parties had not been executed, as the parties failed to appear before the trial court on the final opportunity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM NO. M-21290 OF 2011(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-21290 OF 2011(O&M) DECIDED ON : 21.05.2013
Aruna Garg
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Additional AG, Punjab.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for quashing FIR No. 138 dated 15.09.2009 under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, on the basis of compromise.
Status report filed. It be taken on record.
On the last date of hearing, one final opportunity was granted to the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording their statements. Report from the trial Court has been received in which it is mentioned that parties have not appeared for the compromise.
CRM NO. M-21290 OF 2011(O&M)
-2-
Since, there is no compromise, as such, the present
stands dismissed.
MAY 21, 2013 shalini
(K. C. PURI) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR registered under Sections 420/120-B IPC for compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a compromise that was not executed.
Aruna Garg
State of Punjab and another
K. C. PURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
