Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Kumar Jain vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 September, 2013
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRM-M No.21914 of 2013 1
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.21914 of 2013
Date of decision : 13.09.2013
Devinder Kumar Jain
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr.Nitin Thatai, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms.Shipra Sukhija, Advocate
for Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)
Mr.Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.77 dated 16.08.2012, under Sections 51, 52A, and 63 of the Copyright Act 1957 registered at Police Station Division No.1, Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise dated 01.07.2013 (Annxure P2) effected between the parties.
The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise.
A report has been submitted by the trial Court / Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, wherein it has been reported that the statements of the petitioner and complainant Devinder Kumar Jain have Davinder Kumar 2013.09.17 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21914 of 2013 2 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.
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 petitioner and 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 FIR No.77 dated 16.08.2012, under Sections 51, 52A, and 63 of the Copyright Act 1957 registered at Police Station Division No.1, Ludhiana, and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE September 13, 2013.
Davinder Kumar