The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR based on a compromise, ruling that no ground for interference existed as the petitioners had not honoured the compromise terms.
Petition for quashing of FIR No. 18 and subsequent proceedings dismissed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13651 of 2014
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13651 of 2014 Date of Decision: 19.12.2014.
Neeru Joshi and another
........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. P.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S.Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 16.3.2011, under Section 452 (deleted later on), 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short) and Section 201 IPC (added later on), registered at Police Station Mullanpur Garibdass, District Sahibzada Ajjit Singh Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 22.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioners have not honoured the terms of the compromise.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for
GURPREET SINGH 2014.12.23 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
-2 -
Crl. Misc. No. M-13651 of 2014
respondent No. 2, no ground for interference by this Court is
made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
December 19, 2014 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2014.12.23 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings on the basis of the alleged compromise.
Whether the ground for interference exists in view of the submission that the petitioners did not honour the compromise terms.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Neeru Joshi
another
State of Punjab
another
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
