Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhjeet Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 November, 2013

Author: Rekha Mittal

Bench: Rekha Mittal

           CRM-M-25792-2013                                                                 1

             IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

                                                       CRM-M-25792-2013
                                                       Date of decision : 20.11.2013

           Sukhjeet Singh and another
                                                                          ... Petitioners

                                     Versus

           State of Punjab and another
                                                                          ... Respondents

           CORAM:              HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

           Present:            Mr.S.P.Soi, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.

                               Mr.Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab.

           REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of complaint No.100/1/11 dated 27.04.2011, under Sections 406/498-A IPC read with Sections 324, 325, 506 IPC pending in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Nakodar, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise dated 22.05.2013 (Annexure P2) effected between the parties.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.09.2013 to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise.

A report has been submitted by the trial Court / Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, wherein it has been reported that the statements of the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 have been recorded and the statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise with an intention to live in peace and harmony.

Davinder Kumar

2013.11.26 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25792-2013 2

Mr.Gaurav Tangri, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant-respondent No.2. Counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 has conceded to the fact that parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise and the complainant-respondent No.2 has got no objection if the aforesaid FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

Counsel for the State has not disputed correctness of assertions of the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 that the matter has been settled by way of compromise between the parties.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. There is nothing on record to doubt correctness of the compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony. The present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and complaint No.100/1/11 dated 27.04.2011, under Sections 406/498-A IPC read with Sections 324, 325, 506 IPC pending in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Nakodar, District Jalandhar and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE November 20, 2013.

Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2013.11.26 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document