Crl. Misc. M 7444 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-

Crl. Misc. M 7444 of 2017
Date of decision: 30.05.2017

Baggi alias Kamala Bhatti …….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another …….Respondents

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-

Present: None for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab

None for respondent No. 2
-.-

Rekha Mittal, J.

Through the present petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner prays for

quashing of FIR No. 122 dated 02.06.2013 for offence punishable under

Sections 509, 294 and 506 (Section 354 added later) of the Indian Penal

Code (in short, ‘IPC’) registered with Police Station City Batala, Police

District Batala and proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of

compromise dated 13.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the

parties.

It is pleaded that with the intervention of respectable of the

locality, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter

vide compromise dated 13.02.2017.

Vide order dated 06.03.2017, the parties were directed to

appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to get their statements

1 of 2
09-06-2017 20:03:44 :::
Crl. Misc. M 7444 of 2017 2

recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise.

Pursuant thereto, a report has been submitted by the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala wherein it has been reported that

statements of the parties have been recorded and they have voluntarily

compromised the matter.

Counsel for the State does not dispute genuineness of the

compromise in view of report of the Court below.

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2.

A perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present case

squarely falls in that category of cases which can be quashed by the High

Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Keeping

in view the authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in ‘Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another’, 2012(4)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances of the

present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of

criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is

expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an

end.

In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and FIR

No. 122 dated 02.06.2013 for offence punishable under Sections 509, 294

and 506 IPC (Section 354 IPC added later) registered with Police Station

City Batala, Police District Batala and proceedings emanating therefrom on

the basis of compromise stand quashed qua the petitioner.

(Rekha Mittal)
Judge
30.05.2017
mohan bimbra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
09-06-2017 20:03:45 :::