Vidya Singh & ANR v. State Of Haryana & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-15025 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 01, 2017 Vidya Singh and others

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Dhawal Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Brijesh Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Haryana and Ranvir Singh for quashing the FIR No.344 dated 12.06.2015 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/statements dated 01.12.2015 of petitioners and respondent No.2 as recorded before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Vineet Gulati 2017.12.20 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh State counsel and have gone through the record.

CRM No.M-15025 of 2016 -2From the record, I find that in the present case, parties were directed to appear before trial Court to get recorded their statements regarding compromise. Respondent No.2-complainant made statement before learned trial Court that he does not want to compromise the matter with the accused persons because accused persons have not compromised the matter of FIR No.390/15 under Sections 147, 448, 506 IPC, which arose from the same dispute.

Today also, before this Court, learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that there is no compromise, therefore, the FIR should not be quashed on the basis of the compromise.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and in view of the statement of respondent No.2 before the trial court as well as statement of learned counsel for respondent No.2 before this Court and also in view of the fact that there is no compromise between the parties, the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.

Therefore, the present petition for quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file petition for quashing the FIR on merits, if so desired.

December 01, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.12.20 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh