SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjit Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 16 November, 2018

CRM-M-16442-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-16442-2018
Date of decision : 16th November, 2018

MANJIT KAUR AND ORS
……Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR
…Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. A.S. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
(Petition qua petitioner No.3
dismissed as withdrawn on 14.05.2018.

Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, DAG, Punjab.

None for complainant/respondent.
****

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)

The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.116 dated

21.11.2012 registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 IPC, registered at

Police Station Kanwan Pathankot, District Pathankot and the consequent

proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of written compromise

arrived at between the parties.

Report has been received from the trial Court after statements

of the parties were recorded regarding the compromise. The trial Court has

reported that the compromise is voluntary and without any pressure or

coercion. The trial Court has also sent the copy of statements of parties.

1 of 2
29-12-2018 13:34:50 :::
CRM-M-16442-2018 -2-

Learned counsel for the State on instructions submits that

petitioners are the only accused and respondent no.2 is the only aggrieved

person in this FIR.

No useful purpose would be served to keep the FIR pending.

In view of the statements and report of the trial Court and the

principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR

(Criminal) 1052, approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant petition is allowed and

the aforesaid FIR and all consequent proceedings conducted on the basis

thereof are quashed qua the petitioners No. 1 and 2.

Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of

compromise and their statements made in the Court below.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
JUDGE

16.11.2018
tarun

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
29-12-2018 13:34:50 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation