High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Piyush Saroj vs State Of U.T. on 2 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piyush Saroj vs State Of U.T. on 2 March, 2009
Crl.Misc.No.M-5262 of 2009                                              1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.


                                       Crl.Misc.No.M-5262 of 2009
                                       Date of Decision: 2.3.2009


Piyush Saroj                                              .....Petitioner

                                Vs.

State of U.T.,Chandigarh and another                      ....Respondents

                                ....
CORAM :        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

                                ****

Present :    Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Bassi,Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh for
respondent no.1.

Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the complainant-respondent
no.2.

….

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No.235 dated 1.5.2008,

registered under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at

Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of a compromise.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of

the trial and with the intervention of parents of the petitioner, the petitioner

and the complainant have settled their disputes and compromised the matter.

As per the compromise dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner and

the complainant have agreed that a petition would be filed for quashing of
Crl.Misc.No.M-5262 of 2009 2

the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. It is further

submitted that in furtherance to the aforementioned compromise, the

complainant Dinkar Mahajan has filed an affidavit, acknowledging the

correctness of the compromise and accepting that he has no objection, if the

FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

The complainant, who is present in person, accepts the

correctness of the assertions put forth by counsel for the petitioner and

acknowledges the compromise dated 10.2.2009 and the affidavit dated

24.2.2009 duly sworn by him.

Counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, submits that as

parties have entered into a compromise, the Union Territory, Chandigarh

does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR and subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

affidavit filed by the complainant and am satisfied that the petitioner and the

complainant have arrived at a bonafide settlement of their disputes without

any fraud, coercion or undue influence. A compromise or a settlement,

serves the immediate purpose of the parties as it enables them to proceed

with their lives without illwill or rancour and live in peace and harmony. In

view of the compromise, the prosecution witnesses are not likely to support

the prosecution leading to wastage of valuable Court time. In Kulwinder

Singh V. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, a Full

Bench of this Court has held that, in the exercise of powers under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court may in appropriate cases,

quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences.

In view of what has been stated herein above, as the prayer for
Crl.Misc.No.M-5262 of 2009 3

quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom

does not suffer from any legal impediment, the present petition is allowed

and the FIR No.235 dated 1.5.2008, registered under Sections 323, 506 and

34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh and

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

2.3.2009                                        (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS                                                   JUDGE