GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-754
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 12,2014

GURMUKH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the petition qua petitioner No.3.
(2.) DISMISSED as withdrawn qua petitioner No.3. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code'), petitioners, who are accused in First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') No.413 dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P -1) recorded under Sections 454, 201, 448, 341, 506, 511, 148, 149, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station, Sadar, Patiala, District Patiala, seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR by stating that the matter has been amicably settled between them and respondent No.2 as evidenced by the compromise deed dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure P -2).
(3.) IN the FIR, Annexure P -1, it was alleged by complainant/ respondent No.2 that on 4.9.2004, when she was in Bathinda at her younger son Joginder Singh's house, she was informed that 2/3 cars were parked in front of her Kothi at village Sullar near Dera Mahanta and after getting this information when she returned back, she found that the petitioners had already taken forcible possession of her Kothi. Now, with the intervention of respectables, respondent No.2 has compromised the matter with the petitioners and has no grudge against them. Vide order dated 04.12.2013, learned trial Court was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The learned trial Court has submitted a report dated 21.12.2013 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. Respondent No2, who is represented by her counsel, has no objection if the afore -stated FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, as she has settled the matter with the petitioners by way of compromise (Annexure P -2). State Counsel also does not object to acceptance of present petition and quashing of the afore -said FIR.;


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