Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 November, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-23579 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-23579 of 2013
Date of decision: 11.11.2013.
Rajeev Kumar ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
F.I.R. No.106, dated 06.07.2013, under Sections 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Samana City, District Patiala on the basis of complaint made by Sanjeev Kumar-respondent No.2.
Petitioner-Rajeev Kumar and complainant-respondent No.2-Sanjeev Kumar are brothers. As per allegations in the FIR, some unidentified persons entered into the house of the complainant and stole jewellery items from the house. Thereafter, during the pendency of the investigation, a compromise was effected between the parties and the present petition has been filed for quashing of said FIR on the basis of compromise.
Rani Neetu2013.11.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23579 of 2013 2
Notice of motion was issued in the case on 23.07.2013 and thereafter, vide order dated 02.09.2013, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to compromise and the trial Court was also directed to submit a report in this regard.
In compliance of the said direction issued by this Court, a report has been sent by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana along with statements of the parties, which are on record. The petitioner as well as complainant have affirmed the factum of compromise in their respective statements. It has been mentioned in the report that the Court is satisfied regarding voluntariness of compromise arrived at between the parties. It has also been mentioned that no other criminal case is pending against the parties.
Complainant-respondent No.2-Sanjeev Kumar has specifically stated in his statement that accused-petitioner is his brother and dispute has been compromised with the help of family members and there is no ill-will between him and his brother-Rajeev Kumar. He has also stated that he has no objection in quashing of FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom.
Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings in future between the parties would be an exercise in futility as it will be wastage of time of the Court as the complainant and petitioner are brothers and said FIR was stated to Rani Neetu 2013.11.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23579 of 2013 3 be registered due to misunderstanding between the parties. Otherwise also, the object of the compromise is to maintain peace and harmony in the relations.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 106, dated 06.07.2013, under Sections 454 and 380 IPC registered at Police Station Samana City, District Patiala as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner, namely, Rajeev Kumar, are quashed.
11.11.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.11.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh