Allowed

Raghbir & Others v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2010CRM-M/13726/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR involving cheating and forgery charges. Relying on settled precedents, the court held that upon a complete compromise between the parties, continuing criminal prosecution would be futile and abused the process of the court.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.10 dated 10.1.2009 under Sections 420,467,471,120-B IPC and consequent proceedings are quashed.

Raghbir & Others Vs State of Haryana — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13726 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13726 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2010

Raghbir and others

........Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

........Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Vaneet S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for petitioner No.9-complainant.

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.10 dated 10.1.2009, under Sections 420,467,471,120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now the parties have arrived at a compromise.

¶18

Petitioner No.9-complainant, who is present in person, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Petitioner No.9complainant has also attached his affidavit with the petition, as per which the Company has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13726 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

¶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 para Nos.26 and 24 has held as under :-

¶23

“26. 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 facts. 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 hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of the Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13726 of 2010 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

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 and have settled all their disputes and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.10 dated 10.1.2009, under Sections 420,467,471,120-B of IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶30

September 20, 2010 Anand

¶31

(SABINA) JUDGE

Raghbir & Others v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghbir & Others v. State of Haryana

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

Rita Rani Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajesh Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

(O&M) Kulwant Singh & Another Vs Sarabjit Singh

Akil Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Anr.