Sukhchain Chand v. State Of Punjab And Others

2024:PHHC:023960 [119]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43010-2023 Date of Decision : 21.02.2024 Sukhchain Chand

...Petitioner

versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Coram :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present :

Mr. Vivek K. Tthakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Mehak Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for respondent Nos.4(b) to 4(f).

*** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) [1] Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of F.I.R. No.34, dated 17.03.2016, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of affidavits and compromise dated 06.06.2023 (Annexures P-10 to P-12).

[2] This Court vide order dated 06.02.2024 had directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send the report qua the genuineness of the compromise.

[3] Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 20.02.2024 to the effect that the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.02.21 05:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:023960 CRM-M-43010-2023 -2compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.

[4] Statements of Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4(b) to 4(f), with regard to compromise were recorded before learned Magistrate on 19.02.2024. [5] Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4(b) to 4(f) have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. [6] In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R. following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.34, dated 17.03.2016, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise qua petitioner, are hereby quashed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 21.02.2024 'Rajneesh'

Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.02.21 05:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document