High Court quashed an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court allowed the petition based on a compromise and settlement between the petitioner and the complainant, finding no point in continuing prosecution.
FIR No. 289 dated 26.05.2002 and all consequent proceedings are 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- 15169 of 2010 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 15169 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 16, 2010
Surinder M. Khandhar
........Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory Chandigarh and another
........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present : Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate for Mr. Varun Tara, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kulbir Dalal, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. A.S. Grewal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 in person.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.289 dated 26.5.2002, under Sections 406,420,120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the parties have arrived at a compromise. The amount in dispute has been paid
Crl. Misc. No. M- 15169 of 2010 (O&M)
2
to respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Now the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel and has stated that he has received the amount in question from the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Affidavit of respondent No.2 in this regard has been placed on record.
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.
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 :-
“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
Crl. Misc. No. M- 15169 of 2010 (O&M)
3
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?
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.289 dated 26.5.2002, under Sections 406,420,120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh and all consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
December 16, 2010 Anand
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings arising from a complaint of cheating and criminal breach of trust can be quashed upon arrival of a compromise between the parties.
Whether the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings extends to non-compoundable offences where a settlement has been reached to prevent abuse of process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶23
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶24
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi's caseReferred¶29
B.S. Joshi's case
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surinder M. Khandhar
Union Territory Chandigarh
Other
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
