High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/43982/2016allowed

Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2016-12-22Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

Crl. Misc. No. M-43982 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-43982 of 2016 Date of decision : 22.12.2016 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. A.P.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3.

**** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Quashing of FIR No. 32 dated 30.04.2016 under Sections 363/366 IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural), is sought on the basis of compromise dated 03.12.2016 (P-2). Respondent No. 3 got married to petitioner on 03.05.2016 i.e after registration of F.I.R and both were major at the time of marriage. F.I.R has been registered by father of respondent No.3 i.e respondent No. 2 with the allegation that the petitioner has enticed away her daughter on the pretext of marrying her. However, respondent No. 3 went with the petitioner with her own free will.

However, the matter has now been duly compromised between the parties, vide compromise dated 03.12.2016 (P-2). Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties could not get their statement recorded, pursuant to order dated 08.12.2016. GAURAV ARORA 2016.12.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-43982 of 2016 -2However, petitioner, complainant and her daughter are present in the Court today and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 has put in appearance and has tendered the affidavit of respondent No. 3 dated 12.12.2013. As per affidavit, respondent No. 3 has no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the petitioner.

Petitioner, respondent No. 2 and 3 have been identified by ASI Tarsem Singh, who is present in the Court today. This Court has thus no hesitation to accept the contents of compromise, therefore, this Court does not want to adjourn the case to await the report of the trial Court. Consequently, in view of the affidavit dated 12.12.2016 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

Accordingly, FIR No. 32 dated 30.04.2016 under Sections 363/366 IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.

The petition stands disposed of.

22.12.2016 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2016.12.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh