TARSEM KUMAR Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-46
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on November 23,2006

TARSEM KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 561 -A of Criminal Procedure Code (here -in -after referred to as the Code) for quashing FIR No.11 of 2000 dt. 11th of July2000, registered with the Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu.
(2.) THE relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant -respondent No.3 herein lodged a complaint with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner fraudulently sold the land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla comprised in khasra No. 896 min. situated at Gulwade Chak, Tehsil Jammu, to Sobha Ram vide sale deed dt. 23rd of March98, registered on 7th of April98, by producing some other lady before the court and impersonating her as respondent No.3. The said complaint filed by respondent No.3 was sent to respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of the Code to register an FIR against the petitioner. Respondent No.2 accordingly registered FIR No. 11/2000 against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 471, 467 and 468 RPC in which the petitioner was granted bail by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions, Judge, Jammu.
(3.) RESPONDENT No.3 along with her mother and two sisters then filed a civil suit titled Tripta Devi and ors v. Ashwani Kumar and ors in the court of District Judge, Jammu, in which the sale deed made in favour of Sobha Ram was challenged. Ultimately a compromise was entered into between the parties and in view of the said compromise, respondent No.3 along with her sisters withdrew the suit against the petitioner and Sobha Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the suit filed by the respondent No.3 in which allegations of forgery and cheating were made against the petitioner and other defendants was withdrawn, the sale deed made in favour of Sobha Ram would be deemed to have been admitted and the allegations made in FIR 11/2000 would also be deemed to have been withdrawn. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent No.3 are closely related and she effected a compromise in the civil suit as also in the FIR registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that as the offence for which the FIR has been registered is non -compoundable, therefore, the parties may be allowed to compound the offence. The learned counsel further submitted that the case was registered against the petitioner six years back and till date no tangible evidence has been collected by the prosecution for presentation of the challan. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit to the effect that she does not want to prosecute the case further in view of the compromise.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.