Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh @ Sikander And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 July, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Criminal Misc. No. M-18057 of 2011 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-18057 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 4.7.2011
Surinder Singh @ Sikander and others
.. Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 16.3.2010, under Sections 365, 342, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier FIR No. 132 dated 28.6.2009 under Sections 307, 323, 347, 447, 511, 506, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered with Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar on the statement of Rajvinder Kaur daughter of Surinder Singh-petitioner No.1. Both the FIRs relate to one incident between the same parties. He further submitted that during the pendency of trial of both the cases, the dispute between the parties was settled vide compromise dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure P3). As per said compromise, Rajvinder Kaur complainant got recorded her statement before the trial court and on the basis of her statement, all the accused in FIR No. 132 ( including complainant in FIR No. 51) were acquitted vide order dated 21.12.2010. The submission is that the complainant in the present FIR is now backing out from making any statement in favour of Criminal Misc. No. M-18057 of 2011 [ 2] the petitioners.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The contention raised by the petitioners for quashing the FIR that Rajvinder Kaur had given statement as per the compromise arrived at between the parties and now the complainant party in the present case is backing out from the said compromise is no ground to quash the present FIR.
Dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 4.7.2011 mk