Rajesh Kumar And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

  


      



   

!"!

# $ %&& '

"( )*+, - ' # # ( ,

&&&&&&  !!

# ,"

.

,"*"

/

*#'0 # # ( ,

&&&&&& "1 # #"

 $

 23 & /

 ) 




 
  

 








 





  
 
!

"

#$



% & ''''

 ) 

&

5,67

()
*)


 

 

+ , 

-.

!

"/

"0 1"

"123


 
415 
2"16(
.%




 
7



 

 


15 "1"2
#8 
6"&

9
1"

1:

"1"2



*

*
6 ; 

 

 
  
45"
%
 
, 

-.

!

"/
 "0 1"

"123

 
415

2"16(
.% 




 

7





, 
 
  




 
#8 6"&

!



 

 

 
 
 

 

 
!

2






 

 

 
 
!

"


)

 
 


<7 )


25 "1"2


)
 
 



%




 
 
*



 

$
 



  
 $
%

<7 )

.



 

 

%

<7 ) 
*


 





%

  

8






*
<   &



 



)




 =
&
*



 < 
 
 

%





 =
 &
*
)

 

 

 < 




24 "1"2
>  


 

 
 
? .%

 
"@ 1/ "1"2



*

+

 


 
 


%



 



*6 ;- 


 
 
 

 

 


 
*


*

)

*


)  




 
)
,  > 



 

 
  !

"






 

 However, learned State counsel submits that though as per the report, the parties have compromised, but the fact remains that offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC is non compoundable.

In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012, titled as 'Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh'. The relevant portion of which reads as under=6 ;22

$ 




*

A 6  

 B
 

 


)







  
8


 *
  
@"1
%
)
 

)



 *






  
 
   
 
@"1
% %
*

 8


 

C 
$






 )


 

 
@"1 % 
*
)

)

*
 



 



 +
A 

 B

*

  

)
+



 
 

 

! 



 
 





*

* +

 
@"1
%


 



 +

 * )

D
%






 
45"

%
$
D
%


+

*



 

 




 

   


 
45"
%





 


 

)
%


< 


 




 >



*

*

 *
)
 
%


 




 
.


 

,  
-.

!

"/

"0 1"

"123


 
415

2"16 (
.%




 
7





  
 .

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The abovesaid FIR alongwith subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. 5 ) 

 %&&











7 E
+<  F E
  
 !