Sanjeev Bhatia And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ANR
CRM-M-25471-2021 (O&M) & CRM-M-35377-2021 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Case No. : CRM-M-25471-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.03.2023 SANJEEV BHATIA AND ANR
...Petitioner(s)
VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
...Respondent(s)
Case No. : CRM-M-35377-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.03.2023 GURMEET KAUR AND ANR
...Petitioner(s)
VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Nain, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. R.K. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** GURBIR SINGH , J. (ORAL) Vide this common judgment, two petitions i.e. CRM-M-25471-2021 and CRM-M-35377-2021 shall be disposed of. Both the petitions have been filed for quashing FIR No.343, dated 06.11.2020, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Pinjore District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 18.05.2021 and 25.05.2021 (Annexure P-2 and P-3) in CRM-M-25471-2021 and dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) in CRM-M-35377-2021 effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was KUSUM 2023.03.10 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
CRM-M-25471-2021 (O&M) & CRM-M-35377-2021 (O&M) directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise by this Court. In compliance thereof, report dated 11.07.2022 from the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate Kalka has been received through the District & Sessions Judge, Panchkula, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is voluntary and without any pressure or undue influence from any side.
The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in such like situation in order to prevent unnecessary vagaries of criminal trial to be faced by the parties, when there are remote chances of conviction of the accused. The compromise in question is found to be fully in consonance with the direction issued by the Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another " , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and "Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543. In view of the aforesaid report of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka accompanied by statement of both the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.343, dated 06.11.
2020, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Pinjore District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 18.05.2021 and 25.05.2021 (Annexure P-2 and P-3) in CRM-M-25471-2021 and dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) in CRM-M35377-2021 (Annexure P-2) qua the petitioners only. (GURBIR SINGH) JUDGE 01.03.2023 kusum Whether reasoned/speaking?
Yes/No Whether reportable?
Yes/No KUSUM 2023.03.10 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD