Allowed

Preet Brar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2009CRM-M/16372/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition to quash an FIR registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The dispute between the petitioner and complainant was monetary in nature. An amicable settlement was reached, and the complainant admitted receiving the disputed amount. The Court held that quashing the FIR served the interest of justice and harmony.

What did the court decide?

Quashed F.I.R. No. 109 dated 05.06.2009 under Sections 420, 406 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Preet Brar Vs State of Punjab and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-16372 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 04, 2009.

¶3

Preet Brar son of S. Partap Singh resident of House No. 4890/C, Sector-68-C, Mohali.

¶4

...... Petitioner .

¶5

Versus.

¶6

State of Punjab, and another.

¶7

..... Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

¶9

Present:Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner .

¶10

Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2.

¶12

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

¶13

The present petition is for quashing of F.I.R. No. 109, dated 05.06.2009 under Section 420, 406 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Phase8, Mohali, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-P-2), vide which the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them, which was primarily in the nature of monetary misunderstanding, which has occurred between them. An affidavit dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-P-3)of the complainant has also been attached with the petition, wherein the factum of compromise has been admitted by him and he has further stated that he has received the amount, which was due to him.

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. M-16372 of 2009.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Upon notice having been issued, reply by way of short affidavit has been filed by Baljinder Singh son of Ram Singh-respondent No. 2- complainant, who has in his affidavit also accepted the fact with regard to compromise and has further stated that he has no objection, if the F.I.R., which was registered on his behest against the petitioner is quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings. Shri Baljinder Singh s/o Ram Singh-complainant is present in the Court (as identified by his counsel), who has acknowledged the fact of compromise as well as the fact that he has no objection, if the F.I.R. in question is quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings.

¶17

In view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, which was primarily in the nature of monetary dispute and the admission on the part of respondent No. 2-complainant that he has received the amount in dispute from the petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by further allowing the matter to continue. An amicable settlement having been reached between the parties, the interest of justice would be served by quashing the F.I.R. in question, prayer whereof has been made in the present petition.

¶18

Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, has held as under :-

¶19

“28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and

¶20

Criminal Misc. No. M-16372 of 2009.

¶21

-3-

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned F.I.R. No. 109, dated 05.06.2009 under Section 420, 406 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Phase-8, Mohali, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶25

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

¶26

August 04, 2009. sjks.

Preet Brar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preet Brar 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

Maan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Singh Vs I.O., D.R.I.

Harjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Bhushan & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Neelam and Ors. Vs Vijay

Chander Mukhi Bhargav Vs State of Haryana