Sohan Lal & Others vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh & Another on 30 November, 2009

Criminal Misc. No. M-15567 of 2009                  1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                        Criminal Misc. No. M-15567 of 2009
                        Date of decision: November 30, 2009




Sohan Lal & others                   -Petitioners

            Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh & another -Respondents

Coram       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:    Mr. Keshav Kataria, Advocate, for
            the petitioners.

            Mr. Hemant Bassi, Standing Counsel
            for UT.
            Mr.Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, for
            respondent No.2.

Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 238 dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure P-1) under

Sections 323/452/506 read with Section 34 IPC registered at police station

Sector 31 Chandigarh on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at

between the parties.

On the request of counsel for the parties, the matter was placed

before the Permanent Lok Adalat, where the parties have arrived at a

compromise and statement of the complainant was recorded to this effect.

The order dated 5-11-2009 passed by the Lok Adalat reads thus:-

“Respondent No.2-complainant has compromised
with the other parties and has made a statement that he does not
want any further action to be taken on the FIR No. 238 dated
Criminal Misc. No. M-15567 of 2009 2

3.12.2007 lodged by him under Sections 323/341/506 & 34
IPC and have no objection if the FIR aforesaid is quashed.
Since one of the offences covered by Section 452 IPC is not
compoundable, hence the case is returned to the High Court for
passing appropriate order.”

Complainant/respondent No.2 is present in Court. He is duly

identified by his counsel. He has affirmed the statement made by him

before the Lok Adalat. Affidavit (Annexure P3) filed on his behalf is

already on the record, wherein also the factum of compromise is admitted.

Learned counsel for the Union Territory submits that since the

parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, the State would not stand in

the way of quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise.

The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the

matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is

likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings.

In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent

proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of a Full

Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab,

2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
November 30, 2009.

‘ask’