Parminder Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (1) CRM No.M-24154 of 2013 (O&M) Parminder Kaur (2) CRM No.M-24155 of 2013 (O&M) Navjeet Singh and others (3) CRM No.M-24752 of 2013 (O&M) (4) CRM No.M-24753 of 2013 (O&M) (5) CRM No.M-24754 of 2013 (O&M)
-2- (6) CRM No.M-24755 of 2013 (O&M) (7) CRM No.M-24756 of 2013 (O&M) (8) CRM No.M-24757 of 2013 (O&M) (9) CRM No.M-24758 of 2013 (O&M) (10) CRM No.M-24759 of 2013 (O&M)
-3- (11) CRM No.M-24760 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:- June 03, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.Hittan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.Shivali, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
All the cases are taken up together as the point for determination in all the cases is the same.
The petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Punjab and Kulwant Singh Saini for quashing of impugned order dated 15.07.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Notice of motion was issued in all the petitions and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petitions.
-4I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. The facts are taken from CRM No.M-24154 of 2013. From the record, I find that the order passed by this Court in all these cases on 28.05.2014 shows that learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has got instructions to give offer to respondent No.2 to take his money back with interest or to take the plot as applied by him after making payment of entire settled amount. The order dated 01.08.2014 shows that learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the drafts of the amount due to respondent No.2 has been got prepared and will be delivered to respondent No.2 and if any amount remain due, that would be paid to the satisfaction of respondent No.2.
As per the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by this Court, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that he has received the drafts which have been given to respondent No.2 and further instructions were being sought.
In all the cases, except CRM No.M-24755 of 2013, respondent No.2 has given the affidavits that he has no objection if the impugned order is quashed. Even, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that these cases have been settled and has not argued against the quashing of the impugned order.
As regarding CRM No.M-24755 of 2013, in this case also, respondent No.2 admitted taking of draft of `18 lacs in the Court from the petitioners but learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that some amount remains due. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has returned the amount, paid by respondent No.2 in this case along with 12%
-5interest.
In view of all these facts, it is clear that respondent No.2 has already taken the benefits under the compromise and now he cannot contest the claim by stating that some amount remains to be paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if respondent No.2 wants to contest this petition on merit, then he should return the draft of `18 lacs to the petitioner, which learned counsel for respondent No.2 was not ready to return. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the compromise between the parties and in view of the payments of amount by the petitioners to respondent No.2 in the cases, I find merit in all the petitions and the same are allowed.
The impugned order dated 15.07.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in all the cases, are hereby quashed. June 03, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE