Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5874 P&H

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-11292-2019
                                               Date of Decision:-01.06.2022

RAJESH KUMAR
                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
                                                               ... Respondents


                           *****


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

                           *****

Present:-     Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Ashdeep Singh, Advocate
              for respondent No.2.


                           *****


KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)

Present petition is for quashing of criminal complaint bearing

CIS No.COMI/480/2013 dated 28.8.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Sections

419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and judgment/order of sentence

dated 12.7.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada

(Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) along with other

consequential proceedings arising thereto.

                                     1 of 4

                                 (2)                           CRM-M-11292-2019

The above stated complaint was filed by respondent No.2

against the petitioner.

On notice of motion, respondent No.2 appeared in the Court

through his counsel and pleaded that he has no objection if the aforesaid

complaint and judgment/order of sentence is quashed on the basis of the

aforesaid compromise which has been effected between the parties.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the Appellate Court

was directed to record the statements of the all the concerned parties with

regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the aforesaid compromise.

In compliance thereof, report from the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Mansa along with statements of the parties has been

received, in which, it is mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there

was no undue influence or coercion from any side.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the

settlement effected between the parties, the present petition deserves to be

accepted. It has also come on record that the aforesaid compromise is

genuine and the parties effected the same without any undue influence or

coercion.

A Division Bench of this Court in Sube Singh and Another vs.

State of Haryana and Another, 2013(4) RCR(Criminal) 102 allowed the

compromise quashing petition and quashed the FIR as well as all the

subsequent thereof including judgement and order passed by the Court of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the accused persons were

2 of 4

(3) CRM-M-11292-2019

convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and further held that the appeal

preferred by the accused persons against the aforesaid judgment and order

has been rendered infructuous.

Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1393

of 2011 titled as Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on

25.10.2021 quashed all the proceedings including judgment and order of

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against which the appeal

was pending in the High Court, on the basis of the compromise effected

between the parties.

In the case in hand, the parties have effected compromise. This

Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties is primarily a

private in nature. In view of the compromise, respondent No.2 does not

want to take any further action against the petitioner. I am of the view that

the aforesaid compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties and will

enable the parties to live in peace and enjoy their life in a dignified manner.

So no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending

in the Appellate Court.

For the reasons aforestated and having regard to the law laid

down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and

another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Five Judges Bench of this

Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another,

2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, this petition is allowed and criminal

complaint bearing CIS No.COMI/480/2013 dated 28.8.2012 (Annexure P-1)

under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and judgment/order

of sentence dated 12.7.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

3 of 4

(4) CRM-M-11292-2019

Budhlada (Annexure P-2), along with other consequential proceedings

arising thereto are quashed on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).

Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the

aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.7.2017 (Annexure P-2) would be

rendered infructuous.

The present petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

                                           ( KARAMJIT SINGH)
01.06.2022                                      JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot


                     Whether reasoned / speaking?      Yes / No

                     Whether reportable?               Yes / No




                                     4 of 4