Allowed

Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2017CRM-M/12180/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered for offences under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC. The Court quashed the proceedings noting that the dispute had been amicably settled via a genuine compromise and following Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.84 dated 22.2.2016 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed qua the petitioners.

Ramesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-12180 of 2016 (O&M)

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:6.3.2017

¶5

Ramesh Kumar and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶14

None for the complainant-respondent No.2.

¶15

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.84 dated 22.2.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantKajal Sharma on the allegations that the accused-petitioners along with their accomplices attacked her and family members and inflicted injuries. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably

¶18

compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and

¶19

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Cr. Misc. No.M-12180 of 2016 (O&M) [2]

¶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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has sent his report dated 7.11.2016 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, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondents No.2 to 5 admit the factum of compromise and submit 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 parties as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana 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 2017.03.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Cr. Misc. No.M-12180 of 2016 (O&M) [3]

¶29

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.84 dated 22.2.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶30

March 6, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶31

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & 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

Jagdish Signh @ Bittu Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar(Since Deceased) through His Wife Pushpa Vs Parveen Kumar

Shaminder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sanjeev Vs State of Haryana

Sachin Gupta & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Ranjit Kumar @ Parhi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.