Quashed

Nitin Kapoor v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Oct 2016CRM-M/28478/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 9 under Section 354 IPC and associated proceedings against the petitioner, noting a voluntary compromise deed dated 30.07.2016 and relying on Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents on compromise in sexual offence cases.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 9 dated 22.01.2013 under Sections 354 IPC and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Nitin Kapoor Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-28478 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-28478 of 2016 Date of decision : 25.10.2016

Nitin Kapoor

......Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Manav Anand, Advocate with Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Ms. Manpreet Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab

¶13

Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶14

¶15

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶16

Quashing of FIR No. 9 dated 22.01.2013 under Sections 354 IPC, registered at Police Station 'D' Division District Amritsar City, is being sought on the basis of compromise deed dated 30.07.2016 (Annexure P-2).

¶17

The allegations against the petitioner that he was doing some wrong and obscene act with the daughter of respondent No. 2 by taking her arms and fondling her breast and when respondent No. 2 heard the cries of her daughter, he saw the petitioner who ran away from the spot.

¶18

However, the matter has now been duly compromised, vide compromise deed dated 30.07.2016 (Annexure P-2).

¶19

In compliance of order dated 17.08.2016, report dated 13.09.2016 of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Amritsar, has been received in this regard. As per report, statement of parties have been recorded.

¶20

GAURAV ARORA 2016.10.27 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

Crl. Misc. No. M-28478 of 2016

¶22

¶23

Complainant stated that the matter stands compromised between the parties and he does not want to proceed further against the accused and has no objection, if the present F.I.R be quashed against the petitioner. The compromise has been entered voluntarily. To the same effect is the statement given by the petitioner.

¶24

Consequently, in view of the status report dated 13.09.2016 and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910; “Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 ”, and the law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of “ Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052” , no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

¶25

Accordingly, FIR No. 9 dated 22.01.2013 under Sections 354 IPC, registered at Police Station 'D' Division District Amritsar City, is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of.

¶27

25.10.2016 G Arora

¶28

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶30

GAURAV ARORA 2016.10.27 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nitin Kapoor v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kapoor v. State of Punjab & Anr.

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

Anshul Setia @ Anshul Setiya Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Parmod Kumar and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Maya and Ors. Vs Monika

Rohit Kumar @ Banti Vs State of Haryana

Winner Raina Vs State of Haryana and Anr.