Allowed

Saroj @ Suresh & Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2016CRM-M/15058/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition to quash FIR No. 203 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC arising from criminal proceedings. Relying on the compromise report from the trial court and established Full Bench precedents, the court held that the quarrel nature of the offense justified quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 203 and all consequent proceedings based thereon are quashed qua the petitioners.

Saroj @ Suresh & Another Vs Union Territory of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-15058 of 2016(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-15058 of 2016(O&M) Date of Order: 17.11.2016

¶5

Saroj @ Suresh and another

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Territory of Chandigarh and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

¶11

Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. G.S.Chahal, APP, for UT, Chandigarh

¶13

Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶14

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J. (Oral)

¶15

The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.203, dated 26.05.2014, registered under Section 406 and 498-A IPC, Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of written compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Report has been received from the trial Court after statements of the parties were recorded regarding the compromise. The trial Court has reported that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will of the parties. The trial court has also sent statements of parties.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State on instructions submits that petitioners are the only accused and respondent no.2 is the only Naresh Kumar 2016.11.18 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-15058 of 2016(O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

aggrieved person in this FIR.

¶21

No useful purpose would be served to keep the FIR

¶22

pending.

¶23

In view of the statements and report of the trial Court and the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal), 1052 , approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the instant petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR and all consequent proceedings conducted on the basis thereof are quashed qua the petitioners.

¶24

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

¶25

November 17, 2016 (ANITA CHAUDHRY) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

Naresh Kumar 2016.11.18 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Saroj @ Suresh & Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj @ Suresh & Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another

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

Malinder Pawar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ravinder & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gurpreet Singh @ Moni Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Hardev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.