Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 August, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM No.M-34249 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-34249 of 2011 O&M)
Date of decision : 23.08.2012
Vinod Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate,
for Ms. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the complainant.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR No.33 dated 14.02.2003, registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), at Police Station Ropar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
While issuing the notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court for getting their CRM No.M-34249 of 2011 -2- statements recorded.
In compliance of the order dated 14.11.2011, report of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ropar, dated 25.11.2011, has been received to the effect that the parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement and the said settlement is genuine and without any pressure.
A bare perusal of the compromise deed, statements of the parties recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Ad hoc, Ropar, and her report dated 25.11.2011, it is clear that the appellant has paid a sum of `3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and the complainant does not want to proceed with the case and that he has no objection if the accused is acquitted.
In Mathura Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (13) SCC 420 = 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 859 (SC), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and allowed the compounding of the offence at appellate stage.
This Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowed to compound the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and quashed the proceedings in Davinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, Criminal Misc. No.M-16107 of 2008 (O&M); Anil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 258; Dr. Neena Gupta Vs. State of Punjab and another, Criminal Misc. CRM No.M-34249 of 2011 -3- No.3164 of 2009; Veepinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, Criminal Misc. No.3441 of 2010; Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, Criminal Misc. No.M-16674 of 2008; and Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 991; on the basis of compromise.
In view of the above and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No.33 dated 14.02.2003, registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC, at Police Station Ropar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
Petition allowed.
The fine, already paid, will not be refunded and be treated as costs of prosecution.
23.08.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE