Allowed

Sukhwinder Singh @ Kinder and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2010CRM-M/12594/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings under the IPC. The High Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the prosecution based on a compromise between the parties, emphasizing that continued proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 9 dated 19.2.2003 under Sections 326/323/342/506/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Sukhwinder Singh @ Kinder and Ors. Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-12594 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 02, 2010

¶3

Sukhwinder Singh and another

¶4

...........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶8

Present: Mr.G.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Arshwiner Singh,Deputy Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Jagpal Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2 **

¶9

Sabina, J.

¶10

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 9 dated 19.2.2003 under Sections 326/323/342/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sudhar, Police District Jagraon District Ludhiana (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise dated 10.4.2010 (Annexure P2).

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise.

¶12

Crl. Misc. No. M-12594 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶13

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties (Annexure P2) and has tendered his affidavit, as per which, he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶14

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.

¶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

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-12594 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶18

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?

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

exercise.”

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 9 dated 19.2.2003 under Sections 326/323/342/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sudhar, Police District Jagraon,District Ludhiana as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .

¶24

( Sabina ) Judge

¶25

July 02, 2009

¶26

arya

Sukhwinder Singh @ Kinder and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh @ Kinder and Ors. 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

Raj Kumar Vs State Ofp B.

Angrejo Vs Sewa Singh and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Parshad Vs Prem Kumar.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Daya Singh Vs State of Haryana