Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 288 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. Jatinder Lal Shorey

2000-03-10

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. First respondent-Jatinder Lal Shorey has lodged a complaint against the petitioner - Avtar Singh and another under Sections 452/323/324/325/504/506/34 I.P.C. (Annexure P-1). Petitioner - Avtar Singh has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said complaint Annexure P-1 dated 22.4.95 on the ground that the matter has been compromised with the first respondent- the complainant. 2. Notice was issued to the first respondent and the Advocate General, Punjab. The first respondent appeared in person along with his counsel- Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate and stated that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner, and that he has no objection for quashing the complaint. He also stated that he has filed an affidavit to this effect. Since this petition relates to a complaint the learned counsel for the State did not file any reply. 3. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the record on file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint was filed due to some misunderstandings, but now the parties have settled the matter, and therefore, the complaint has to be quashed as the complainant will not support the complaint. According to him, in these circumstnaces, the continuation of the complaint will only be a waste of time, and it will not be in the interest of justice. 5. Of course, the offence under Section 452 IPC is not compoundable, but it is seen from the petition as well as from the reply affidavit filed by the first respondent-complainant that the parties have settled the matter in order to live in peace and harmony. Therefore, the complainant will not support his complaint even if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded further. It is also in the welfare of both the parties as it will enable them to live in peace. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served by quashing the complaint as no useful purpose will be served. It will also be a waste of time to allow the proceedings to continue. In these circumstances, the petition has to be allowed. 6. Petition is allowed. The complaint in question namely, Jatinder Lal Shorey v. Avtar Singh & Another (Annexure P1) referred to above alongwith the consequential proceedings is quashed.