Sukhjeet Kaur And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Another
CRM-M No. 54536 of 2021 --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 54536 of 2021 (O&M)
Reserved on: 28-04-2022
Pronounced on: 22-07-2022 Sukhjeet Kaur and others ......Petitioners Vs.
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Guneet Babbar, Advocate for Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 10.01.2018 Nandgarh, Distt.
406, 420, 34 IPC (Challan under Sections 406, 420, Bathinda 34, 447, 448, 506, 507, 148 & 149 IPC was presented and charges framed under Sections 420, 406, 148, 448 read with Section 149 & 506 IPC) The petitioner, arraigned as accused in the above captioned FIR, has 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-3. 3.
After that, the petitioner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent. 4.
On the directions of this court, a report has been submitted by Ld. JMIC Bathinda, wherein in response to the query no. 2, that whether all the victims/aggrieved persons have ANJU RANI 2022.07.22 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 54536 of 2021 --2-- consented to the compromise, the report reads that one aggrieved person Balwinder Kumar stated that although he has no objection to the compromise but he had never entered into any compromise with accused persons or complainant. Thus, all the parties did not appear for compromise. A perusal of the memo of parties reveal that Balwinder Kumar was not even arraigned as a respondent.
5.
Thus, all the aggrieved persons did not consent for the compromise. 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 the above, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh petition, and there would be no necessity to re-examine those aggrieved persons and those accused persons whose statements already stand recorded, and it would also be sufficient to annex photocopies of such statements, attested by the counsel filing such petition.
Petition dismissed in the terms mentioned above, with liberty reserved. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE July 22, 2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2022.07.22 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH