Allowed

Gurpreet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2009CRM-M/11674/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise settled between them and the complainant. The court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings on the grounds that the dispute had civil overtones and continuation would be futile post-compromise.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 213 dated 25.10.2006, summoning order dated 4.3.2009 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11674 of 2009(O&M) -1-

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11674 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:May 22, 2009

¶4

Gurpreet Singh and another

¶5

---Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

---Respondents

¶9

Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman,Advocate, for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab

¶13

Mr.M.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for respondent No. 2

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No.213 dated 25.10.2006 under Sections 269/427 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Lalru district SAS Nagar Mohali (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise dated 26.3.2009(Annexure P-3).

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the leakage in question has been plugged, the parties have entered into a

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11674 of 2009(O&M) -2-

¶19

compromise dated 26.3.2009(Annexure P-3).

¶20

Sucha Singh, attorney of complainant Davinder Singh is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the contents of the compromise (annexure P-3).

¶21

Complainant had come to India only for a week and had lodged FIR in question. Since, the needful has been done by the petitioners, the complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Sucha Singh has been appointed as attorney of complainant Davinder Singh to look after and manage his property.

¶22

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , 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.

¶23

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

¶24

“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

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11674 of 2009(O&M) -3-

¶26

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?

¶27

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this 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.”

¶28

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question.

¶29

Accordingly this petition is allowed. FIR No.213 dated 25.10.2006 under Sections 269/427 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Lalru district SAS Nagar Mohali (annexure P-1), summoning order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed.

¶30

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶31

May 22, 2009 PARAMJIT

¶32

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11674 of 2009(O&M) -4-

Gurpreet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh 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

Jyoti and Another Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Janak Vs State of Haryana

Neelam & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Sunita and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Jyoti & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.