Allowed

Geeta Nand v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2008CRM-M/13274/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for cheating and forgery. The High Court allowed the petition, relying on a precedent regarding compromise in commercial disputes. The FIR was quashed as the dispute had been settled, preventing abuse of legal process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 81 dated 28.2.2008 lodged at Police Station, Sohna, Gurgaon, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, and 471 IPC was quashed.

Geeta Nand Vs State of Haryana and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-13274 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 12, 2008

Geeta Nand

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Haryana & Another

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

PRESENT: - Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Sura, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

. . .

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

¶13

This petition seeks quashing of FIR No.81 dated 28.2.2008 lodged for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC with Police Station, Sohna, Gurgaon.

¶14

At the time when notice of motion was issued, complainant Dr. Surender Kumar was present in Court alongwith his counsel Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Advocate.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondent No.2complainant has endorsed the factum of compromise.

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M- of 2008 [2]

¶17

Affidavit of the complainant has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

t has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner as also respondent No.2 that there were some commercial transactions between the parties on account of which disputes arose. Now that the disputes have been settled, a compromise has been effected. Respondent No.2-complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner in the said FIR.

¶19

This Court in a full Bench(5 Judges) has considered the issue of quashing of proceedings in view of compromise in 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052 (Full Bench), Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, the following has been held in para 28 to 30:-

¶20

The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.

¶21

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M- of 2008 [3]

¶23

under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶24

The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”

¶25

Having regard to the nature of offence, the stage of the case and in particular, the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2complainant, this petition is allowed.

¶26

FIR No.81 dated 28.2.2008 lodged for

¶27

commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC with Police Station, Sohna, Gurgaon, is hereby quashed.

¶28

(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE

¶29

August 12, 2008 avin

Geeta Nand v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Nand v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurdev Singh Khatra Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amit Samber and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ramanpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh Andors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.