Gurmeet Kaur @ Ranjita And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS



          

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 31638 of 2019 Reserved on 16.01.2023 Pronounced on: 06.02.2023 Gurmeet Kaur @ Ranjita and others ......Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Suresh Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 *** ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 07.05.2019 'C' Division, Distt. Amritsar 452/427/506/148/149 IPC The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person. 2.

During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. 3.

After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent(s). Vide order dated 25.07.2019, the parties were directed to appear before the concerned Court to record their statements.

4.

On 31.08.2019, the aggrieved persons-Ravi Kumar and Poonam (R-2 and R-3) appeared before the learned JMIC, Amritsar and stated that there would be no objection if the Court quashing this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned Court's report dated 26.06.2019, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat, coercion and pressure.

SONIA ARORA 2023.02.09 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document



          ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5.

However, the petitioners did not arraign uncle of the complainant-Sham Lal, as a respondent in this case.

6.

Since all the victims did not state about their no objection to the compromise and also the reasons which led to the compromise, as such this court cannot proceed further in this matter.

7.

Given above, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh petition and there would be no necessity re-examine the complainant/aggrieved person and the accused, whose statements stand recorded. The copies of the statements alongwith report would suffice.

Petition dismissed in the terms mentioned above, with liberty reserved. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 06.02.2023 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

SONIA ARORA 2023.02.09 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document