Allowed

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2009CRM-M/10650/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under various IPC Sections. The court held that since the parties had settled their disputes via a compromise, allowing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 236 dated 18.11.2007 under Sections 448, 511, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. M No. 10650 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009

¶3

Rajesh Kumar and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents

¶4

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶5

Present: Mr.Satnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta,Advocate for respondent No.2 **

¶6

Sabina, J.

¶7

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 236 dated 18.11.2007 under Sections 448,511,427,506,148,149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur on the basis of compromise .

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have settled all their disputes.

¶9

Respondent No.2-Mohinder Singh, who is present in person along with his counsel has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P1) and affidavit of respondent has also been placed on record. As per the compromise as well as the affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶10

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

¶11

Crl. Misc. M No. 10650 of 2009

¶12

-2-

¶13

Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,

¶14

High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶15

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶16

“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated

¶17

Crl. Misc. M No. 10650 of 2009 -3-

¶18

hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this

¶19

Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”

¶20

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.

¶21

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 236 dated 18.11.2007 under Sections 448,511, 427,506,148,149 IPC registered at Police Station Mahilpur District Hoshiarpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .

¶22

( Sabina ) Judge

¶23

May 14, 2009

¶24

arya

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab 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

Mastan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Parveen Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vishal Walia Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Gulshan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.