Gurmukh Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M No. 47698 of 2021 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 47698 of 2021 Reserved on 28.07.2022 Pronounced on: 14.09.2022 Gurmukh Singh and another ......Petitioners Vs.

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

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Deepanshu Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 30.07.2021 NRI SAS Nagar Mohali 420 & 406, 120-B IPC and section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation ) Act 2014 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 complainant 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 complainant as respondent. 4.

On 19.7.22, the complainant Kyamudin (R-2) appeared before the JMIC, Mohali and stated that there would be no objection if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 22.7.22, the parties consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat. SONIA ARORA 2022.09.15 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No. 47698 of 2021 --2-- ANALYSIS & REASONING:

5.

However, the petitioners did not arraign rest of the aggrieved (Nuralam, Muhammad Ali, Aditya Raj, Salamudin, Asgar Ali, Zakir Hussain, Bablu Ansari) from whom money was taken by petitioners allegedly for sending them abroad 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 Kyamudin 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 14.09.2022 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

SONIA ARORA 2022.09.15 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document