CRM No. M-29644 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-29644 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.10.2009
Ashwani Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing No.14 dated 1st March,
2009, under Sections 392, 323 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 of Arms
Act, registered at Police Station Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar, on the
basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during
the pendency of the case, a compromise has been arrived at between the
parties and thus FIR deserves to be quashed
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
The FIR was lodged by Shamsher Singh, respondent No.4
herein, alleging that on the night intervening 28th February/1st March,
2009, he was on duty alongwith one Narain at Jawala Mukhi Petrol
CRM No. M-29644 of 2009 2
Pump, Chandigarh Road, Balachor. At about 12.45 A.M., a Tata Safari
vehicle came to the petrol pump from Nawanshahar side and asked to
fill up the diesel for Rs.1500/- in the aforesaid vehicle. After the diesel
of the said amount was filled, the persons who were riding in the Tata
Safari asked to fill the diesel tank full of the aforesaid vehicle. When
complainant asked to pay first Rs.1500/-, then the accused hit him with
stick on his head and robbed him of Rs.6000/-. They also took away a
Nokia mobile phone (No.99140-48434), his identity card and license.
Thereafter, they fled from the spot. Thus, case under Sections 323, 392
read with Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered.
Keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled in the
FIR, the same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The
petitioners are stated to be travelling in a Tata Safari car and the offence
was committed at midnight at a petrol pump situated on the highway.
The offence of robbery (Section 392 IPC), committed on the highway
between sunset and sunrise, is punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to 14 years. I am, thus, of the considered view that the offence
committed cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The prayer
made in the petition is, thus, totally misconceived.
There is no merit in the petition. The same is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
October 23, 2009
‘rajpal’