Harneet Kaur v. State Of Punjab & ORS.

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-35716 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:15.11.2017 Harneet Kaur .....Petitioner v.

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

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ayush Sarna, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

None for the complainant-respondents No.2 to 4. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.100 dated 9.6.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 389, 294 and 506 read with Sections 66-E and 67 of the I.T. (Amendment) Act at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantHarmeet Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioner had become friend with the complainant-respondent No.2 on facebook and taken `25,000/- from him. However, when the complainant refused to carry on

Cr. Misc. No.M-35176 of 2016 [2] further friendship, she demanded `2 Lakhs for not defaming him and also posted obscene photographs of the mother and sister-in-law of the complainant on the facebook. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has sent report dated 26.10.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal

Cr. Misc. No.M-35176 of 2016 [3] prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.100 dated 9.6.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 389, 294 and 506 read with Sections 66-E and 67 of the I.T. (Amendment) Act at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. November 15, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No