Amrik Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-28252 of 2013 .....

Date of decision:28.4.2016 Amrik Singh and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 31.5.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Rahon, District S.B.S. Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/affidavit (Annexure-P.2) qua the petitioners only.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that this petition has been filed by the petitioners Amrik Singh, Gurjit Kaur, Takhvinder Singh and Pharman HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.05.09 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-28252 of 2013 [2] against Gurmeet Singh for quashing of above FIR on the basis of compromise/affidavit (Annexure-P.2). During the pendency of this petition, respondents No.3 and 4 have been impleaded, who are also co-accused in this case. As per the record on 28.4.2014, respondent No.2, who was present in person in the Court along with his Advocate, informed the Court that he had already settled the matter with the petitioners as well as the other accused in the case. Today, again learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that respondent No.2 has settled the matter with the petitioners as well as respondents No.3 and 4, but learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 stated that there is no compromise with the complainant/respondent No.2 and they want to contest this petition. The FIR has been registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. The offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are compoundable.

As there is no dispute between the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 and they have settled the matter and the offences as discussed are also compoundable, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, I allow this petition on the basis of compromise. FIR No.64 dated 31.5.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Rahon, District S.B.S. Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/ affidavit (Annexure-P.2) qua the petitioners only. April 28, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.05.09 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh