Sarabjeet Singh vs State of Punjab

V. M. Jain, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioners for quashing FIR No. 101 dated 20.9.1999 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 323, 148, 149 IPC. The only ground for seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR is that the parties have entered into a compromise.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through record carefully.

Learned counsel for the pclitioners has placed reliance on the law laid down in the cases reported a&AvtarSingh v.JatindertalShorey and another 2000(2) AIJ 245 Ajay Kiimar Singla anil others v. State of Haryana and another 2000(2) AIJ 186 Susftil Kumar Bhatia v. State of Haryana 2000(1) RCR 21 Mrs. Harsh Vandana @Hema v. State ofPun-jab 2000(1) RCR 22 andHfufiikuri Siva Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Judgments Today 2000(2) SC38.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record. in my opinion, there is no scope for quashing the FIR in question on the basis of Mulukuri Siva Prasad Vs. State of A.P., relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertains to a case u/s 324 I PC. The said offence is compound-able with the permission of the Court u/s 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was exactly what was done by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said authority. The law laid down in this authority would thus have no application to the facts of the present case. The authorities 2000(1) RCR 21 (supra) and 2000(2) AIJ 186 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertain to the offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. There was matrimonial dispute and the parties had entered into a compromise. On compassionate grounds the FIR lodged by the complainant-wife was ordered to be quashed by this Court. The authority 2000(1) RCR 22 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners was for an offence under Sections 365, 366 IPC. In that case, the complainants had married the accused and the parties were living together as husband and wife. It was under those circumstances that the FIR was quashed by this Court. The law laid down by this Court would have no application to the facts of the present case.

The authority 2000(2) AIJ 245 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel tor the petitioners, in my opinion, would also have no application to the tacts of the present case. The reported case pertains to a criminal complaint. It was under those circumstances that the criminal complaint was ordered to be quashed by this conn. So far as the present case is concerned on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, FIR was registered. The case was investigated by the police. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, no case is made out for ordering the quashment of the FIR in question, on the ground that the parties have allegedly entered into a compromise. This is especially so, when the offence u/s 452 IPC is non-compoundable with or without permission of the Court.

No other point has been raised before me.

For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

However, the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of approaching the Judicial Magistrate, at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law. if so advised.

Copy dasti, on payment.

Petition dismissed.