Allowed

Charanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2009CRM-M/11950/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust based on a post-filing compromise. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that continuing proceedings would be futile after the dispute was settled.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 291 dated 30.10.2008 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11950 of 2009(O&M) -1-

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11950 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:May 26, 2009

¶4

Charanpreet Singh

¶5

---Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

---Respondents

¶9

Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab

¶13

Mr.N.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Charanpreet Singh -petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 291 dated 30.10.2008 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, City Tarn Taran(Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P-2).

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of respectables and friends parties have entered into a

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11950 of 2009(O&M) -2-

¶19

compromise dated 10.3.2009(Annexure P-2). Claim of respondent No. 2 regarding money in question now stands satisfied.

¶20

Respondent No. 2 is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the contents of compromise(Annexure P-2) and his affidavit(Annexure P-3) wherein it has been stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶21

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.

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11950 of 2009(O&M) -3-

¶25

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?

¶26

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.”

¶27

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful

¶28

purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question.

¶29

Accordingly this petition is allowed. FIR No. 291 dated 30.10.2008 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, City Tarn Taran(Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed.

¶30

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶31

May 26, 2009 PARAMJIT

Charanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanpreet Singh 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

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Umar Mohammad Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Wazir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.