The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR alleging cheating and forgery, allowing a compromise between the petitioner and the accused to settle the dispute in the interest of justice.
FIR No.207 dated 9.5.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc.No.M 14932 of 2010 # 1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH .
Crl. Misc.No.M 14932 of 2010
Date of Decision:-25.08.2010
. Parmeet Singh
...... Petitioner .
Versus
. State of Haryana & Anr
. ...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present:Mr. Anuj Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Additional Advocate General Haryana.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.2-Complainant.
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.207 dated 9.5.2009 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise 3.6.2009(Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
The allegations levelled by complainant-respondent no.2
Crl. Misc.No.M 14932 of 2010 # 2#
Sunil Kumar are that he has handed over his Hyundai Verna CRDI Car bearing registration No.HR-I 6-K-0070 to petitioner-accused Parmeet Singh on the pretext of selling the same for a good consideration, as complainant wants to purchase a new Safari car. The said Verna car of the complainant was sold by Parmeet Singh to a person namely Dalbir Singh, co-accused but the sale consideration was not paid to him.
Notice of motion was issued.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2 who is also present in the court and has been identified by his counsel.
Learned counsel for the complainant on instructions from complainant submits that during the pendency of the petition he has received the entire sale consideration and, therefore, he does not wish to pursue the case and has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. His statement has been separately recorded.
Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Surjit Singh submits that only challan in the present case has been filed.
In view of the fact that dispute between the parties is of personal nature and they have settled the issued and the respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue the case any further no useful purpose would be served to carry on with the proceedings.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-
Crl. Misc.No.M 14932 of 2010 # 3#
compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-
“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.”
Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-
“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 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.”
Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of
Crl. Misc.No.M 14932 of 2010 # 4#
the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.207 dated 9.5.2009 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
25th August, 2010 Vinay.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash FIR alleging cheque-bounce and cheating offences based on a compromise.
Whether a dispute of personal nature between parties qualifies for quashing criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶25
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abot v. State of PunjabExplained¶29
Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parmeet Singh
State of Haryana
Sunil Kumar
JASWANT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
