Jotu @ Jotun v. State Of Punjab And ORS










 

 
   



!"


 #$
%&
  
'
   (  !$ )$ *
+



+ (  , !-!  "
 ./
 0
 +

  

$ !"   



   

           ! 
  

&
01 $23


 



 !"#"  !

$

"





     !$ %& '!

 

 

() * !



   +   '

  ,   

 



!+

        # 

%-. !

 

  */-0# !

+   !"#" + +

 ,   

 





   +  12!

 



 + 0  -  

4#!
) 0
+

*5$
!-

6$ &

+
!2!
+
789.

  3/   +    

4 5In our considered opinion, the Criminal Proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482of the Cr. P.C. only because there is a settlement, in this case a monetary settlement, between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. As held by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra), Section 307of the IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. On a parity of reasoning, offence under section 306of the RIMPAL RANI 2022.10.19 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-25121-2021 :2:

IPC would fall in the same category. An FIR under Section 306of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. It is clarified that it was not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether the FIR in this case discloses any offence under Section 306of the IPC, since the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482Cr.P.C, quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised."

% #   

  

  

   "

 # #   

  

#   "

 $ +

 # #

 #$
%&














1
  3 + 

  
6

    7

'4 8

7( 6

 

 !

7(






RIMPAL RANI 2022.10.19 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document