Allowed

Surinder Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2016CRM-M/27849/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash FIR for theft and dishonesty alleging a genuine compromise between parties. The court held that continuance of prosecution would be futile after the parties amicably settled the dispute. Relying on Gian Singh order, the petition was allowed and subsequent proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.271 dated 26.11.2013 registered for offences under Sections 381, 411 and 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

Surinder Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Date of decision:23.2.2016

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Criminal Misc. No.M-27849 of 2015

¶4

.....

¶5

Surinder Kumar and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

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

¶13

Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶14

None for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3.

¶15

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.271 dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 381, 411 and 34 IPC at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantDeepak Sehgal on the allegations that the accused-petitioner Surinder Kumar, who had been working in the shop of the complainant, along with Naresh Kumar, had stolen LCD and LED from their shop. Now with intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and

¶18

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.27 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

[2]

¶20

Cr. Misc. No.M-27849 of 2015

¶21

differences.

¶22

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has sent his report dated 4.2.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

¶23

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.

¶25

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

¶26

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been

¶27

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.27 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Cr. Misc. No.M-27849 of 2015

¶29

[3]

¶30

amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.271 dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 381, 411 and 34 IPC at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

February 23, 2016.

¶32

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶33

hsp

¶34

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.27 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Surinder Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Chhinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Krishna Finance Corporation Vs Seema Rani

Balraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mangat Ram Vs Vinod Kumar etc.

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhbir Singh and Anr. Vs Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority