Ravi Kumar v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-32818 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 19, 2016 Ravi Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Punjab and Harbans Kaur for quashing of the orders Annexures P-7 and P-8 passed by learned Courts below and further to allow the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 320 IPC for compounding the offences in case FIR No.116 dated 18.07.2009 under Sections 382 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar, keeping in view the fact that compromise has been effected between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that earlier a petition was filed by the present petitioner for quashing of FIR No.116 dated 18.07.2009 under Vineet Gulati 2016.09.22 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Sections 382 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Rupnagar on the basis

CRM No.M-32818 of 2016 -2of the compromise, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2016. As per the prosecution version, complainant was going to his house at village Husainpur on scooter and his wife was also going to house in front of him on a rickshaw. At about 11.30 A.M., when they reached near Pabla Engineering Shop, then two youths came there on a motorcycle. One of them climbed the rickshaw and snatched the gold chain of complainant's wife and second accused kept sitting on the motorcycle with engine running. The offence under Section 382 IPC is non compoundable. As the offence is non-compoundable, therefore, it cannot be compounded by the Court despite the compromise. Furthermore, the petition filed by the present petitioner for quashing of the FIR has already been dismissed by this Court as stated above.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are correct, as per law and do not require any interference from this Court.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

September 19, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.09.22 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh