Allowed

Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2008CRM-M/32120/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered for theft and cheating. The court accepted that the dispute was personal in nature and involved a genuine, voluntary compromise between the parties, rendering further criminal proceedings futile.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 396 dated 13.11.2008 registered under Sections 379 and 420 IPC at Police Station City Gohana, and all further proceedings arising out of the same, are quashed.

Manoj Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CRM No. M 32120 of 2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 32120 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.12.2009

¶4

Punit Kumar

¶5

........ Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s)

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Mr. R K Dogra, Advocate for for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Deepak Jindal Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent - State

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 396 dated 13.11.2008 registered under Sections 379, 420 IPC at Police Station City Gohana on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.

¶18

This Court vide order dated 16.11.2009, had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court with further direction to the trial Court to

¶19

CRM No. M 32120 of 2008 2

¶20

record a finding whether any volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties or not.

¶21

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gohana has submitted his report dated 05.12.2009 stating therein that Sanjeev Chaudhary, Office Worker, Sahara India Pariwar, Regional Office, Panipat appeared, who was duly authorised by the Regional Manager to make the statement qua settlement of dispute with the accused has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled. He has also filed a copy of the compromise deed before the trial Court. It is also stated in the report that in pursuance of terms of settlement, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- which was drawn by him. It is also stated that the aforesaid matter has been resolved without any pressure. Statements have been separately recorded by the trial Court. The compromise is stated to be genuine.

¶22

As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner had stolen cheque bearing No.551473 dated 07.11.2008 and thereafter, he presented the same in the account of his known in the bank. Both the petitioner as well as the complainant are the employees of the same Company- Sahara India Pariwar. It is stated that with the intervention of the well-wishers and respectable of both the parties as well as the other employees, a compromise has been effected between them. The petitioner has since returned Rs.75,000/- to the Company in order to maintain smooth relation with the Company.

¶23

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-

¶24

CRM No. M 32120 of 2008 3

¶25

“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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶26

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶27

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the

¶28

CRM No. M 32120 of 2008 4

¶29

matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶30

The present case is related to a dispute which is purely personal in nature. The compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The Company has since been compensated and they do not wish to proceed against the petitioner. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. Keeping the Criminal proceedings alive will not serve any purpose and rather it is a futile exercise as the chances of conviction of the petitioner are almost nil in view of the statement made by the complainant that the matter is compromised.

¶31

Keeping in mind the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) as also the facts of the present case and report received from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gohana, there is no bar in accepting the compromise (Annexure P-3) in the facts of the present case. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 396 dated 13.11.2008 registered under Sections 379, 420 IPC at Police Station City Gohana as well as proceedings arising out of the same.

¶32

Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶33

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶35

December 23, 2009 mohan

Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Pritam Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Kawaljit Singh Walia Vs State of Punjab

Daya Nand Vs Divisional Canal Officer etc.

Kehar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Tever Preet Singh (Minor) Vs State of Punjab and Anr.