Crl. Misc. No. M-2117 of 2010 1 v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 367, 452, 506
- Arms Act, 1959
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.10 dated 3rd January, 2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 367, 452, 506 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, 1959, registered at police station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Complainant/respondent No.2 as well as his daughter Kuldeep Kaur are present in Court. They are duly identified by their counsel. They have filed their affidavits in court today, which are taken on record as Mark 'A' and Mark 'B', wherein the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties has been admitted. They state that they have no objection if the present FIR is quashed. Crl. Misc. No. M-2117 of 2010 2 Learned State counsel 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. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
8.7.2010 'rajpal'
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 367, 452, 506; Arms Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Jul 2010. The bench was RAJAN GUPTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.