SARABJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 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.

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

(3.) 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 compromise. The authority JT 2000(2) SC 38 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertains to a case under Section 324 IPC. The said offence is compoundable with the permission of the Court under Section 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) Recent Criminal Reports 21 (supra) and 2000(2) All Instant Judgments 186 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertain to the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A 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) Recent Criminal Reports 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.