Dismissed

Komal Kumar Jain @ Kanwal Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Feb 2014CRM-M/32797/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judicial order dismisses a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that partial quashing of a non-compoundable charge is impermissible per precedent. However, it directed the trial court to allow the petitioner exemption from personal appearance and consider compromise documents during trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner granted exemption from personal appearance in trial court; compromise noted as mitigating factor.

Komal Kumar Jain @ Kanwal Kumar Jain Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-32797-2013 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-32797-2013 (O&M) Decided on: February 7, 2014.

¶4

Komal Kumar Jain @ Kanwal Kumar Jain

¶5

.. Petitioner(s)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

.. Respondent(s)

¶9

*** * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner.**

¶10

Mr.Premjit Singh Hundal, AAG., Punjab.

¶11

Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings against him launched on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by Tarsem Lal alleging that his kiosk (Khoka) on the public place was removed by two co-accused of the petitioner. The petitioner in the capacity as President of Municipal Committee had allegedly threatened the complainant. The complainant has furnished an affidavit that the petitioner had been involved in the case on the basis of suspicion and that he has compromised the matter but the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mukerian, has not allowed to withdraw the complaint as the charge has been framed under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, which is non-

¶14

¶15

Raj Kumar Arora 2014.02.12 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-32797-2013 (O&M)

¶17

compoundable. The circumstances of the present case warrant quashing of the criminal complaint against the petitioner on the basis of compromise but partial quashing of criminal complaint on the basis of compromise does not seem to be an act of judicial propriety nor any such partial quashing is permissible as per the judgment in case Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.), 1052.

¶18

This petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the circumstance that the complainant does not want to pursue his remedy against the petitioner, it is ordered that in case the petitioner moves an application for exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court, the trial Court will allow the application and will continue the proceedings. It will be open to the petitioner to be represented through counsel on various dates of hearing as per the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. Affidavit and the compromise produced before this Court may be considered as a mitigating circumstance to grant of benefit of doubt to the petitioner or to grant any other benefit to the petitioner.

¶19

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶20

February 7, 2014. rka

¶21

¶22

Raj Kumar Arora 2014.02.12 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Komal Kumar Jain @ Kanwal Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Kumar Jain @ Kanwal Kumar Jain 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh Vs the Addl.Regisrar Coop. Society Punjab

Sneh Lata Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarup Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhola Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sourav Gupta & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.