Allowed

Beena and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2010CRM-M/14181/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered for offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The FIR was quashed due to a compromise between the parties and an affidavit from the respondent stating no objection to quashing, aligning with judicial precedents on compromise in modern society.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.168 dated 19.4.2008 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120-B,506 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Beena and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-14181 of 2010 Date of Decision:4.10.2010

Beena and others

.... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Neeraj Bhutani, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.168 dated 19.4.2008 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120-B,506 IPC Police Station Sohana, District Gurgaon and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners on the allegations of forgery and fabrication. However, the matter has been compromised. It is pertinent to mention here that for the land in dispute, which was out come of the FIR, respondent No.2 had also filed a suit for Declaration with Consequential Relief of Permanent Injunction. The said suit was also decreed in favour of respondent No.2 on the basis of compromise vide order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Gurgaon.

¶17

CRM M-14181 of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. As per the affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶20

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-

¶21

“ 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 noncompoundable 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.”

¶22

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶23

“ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no

¶24

CRM M-14181 of 2010 -3-

¶25

possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶26

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.168 dated 19.4.2008 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120-B,506 IPC Police Station Sohana, District Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶28

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶29

4.10.2010 rajeev

Beena and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

Ram Prakash, Sepo Vs State of Haryana

Manish Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Karamjeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Manpreet Singh @ Joban Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana

Sunita Vs State of Haryana