Gora Lal @ Inder Raj And Another vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 12 July, 2011

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gora Lal @ Inder Raj And Another vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 12 July, 2011

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain

CRM No.M-37358 of 2010                                  -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                   CRM No.M-37358 of 2010
                                   Date of Decision : 12.07.2011


Gora Lal @ Inder Raj and another
                                                       ...Petitioners


                             Versus


The State of Punjab and another
                                                     ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
              -.-

Present:   Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate
           for the petitioners.

           Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, D.A.G., Punjab.

           None      for the respondent No.2.


RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint No.78 dated 30.09.2004 registered under Sections 323, 504 IPC read with Section ¾ of the SC and ST Act, 1989 and the summoning order dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). CRM No.M-37358 of 2010 -2-

Notice of motion was issued on 20.12.2010. On the last date Sh. Pawan Sharma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the re- spondent No.2.

On 09.02.2011 the following order was passed:-

"Adjourned to 22.03.2011.

Meanwhile, the parties are directed to be present before the trial Court on 17.02.2011 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording the statements of the parties with regard to compromise. The trial Court is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any man- ner. The trial Court is directed to send a re- port alongwith statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compro- mise effected between the parties and also intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, trial Court is directed to ad- journ the case beyond the date fixed by this Court."

In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the learned Addi- tional District and Sessions Judge, Mansa has submitted the report dated 11.03.2011 to the effect that the parties have entered into compromise (Ex.CX) voluntarily without any pressure. CRM No.M-37358 of 2010 -3-

Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2007(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise.

Consequently, this petition is allowed. The Complaint No.78 dated 30.09.2004 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and the summoning order dated 06.11.2009 are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.





                                              ( RAKESH KUMAR
JAIN )
July 12, 2011                                   JUDGE
ashish

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court