Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mainpal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 November, 2010
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Crl. Misc. No. M-32754 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-32754 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 30.11.2010
Mainpal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.194 dated 12th August, 2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 332, 353, 506 IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at police station Nissing, and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Complainant/respondent No.2 is present in Court. He is duly identified by his counsel. He has filed an affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record as Mark 'A', wherein the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties has been admitted. He states that he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment reported as Surta Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2010 Crl. Misc. No. M-32754 of 2010 2 (1) RCR (Criminal) 782 to urge that the proceedings under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Learned State counsel has placed on record reply on behalf of respondent No.1-State. He submits that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, the State would not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise.
The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings.
In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052 as well as Surta Ram's case (supra).
Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 30.11.2010 'rajpal'