Allowed

Parkash Chand and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2010CRM-M/18945/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application, the court allowed the quashing of an FIR and consequent proceedings under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC based on a compromise between the petitioners and the respondents, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.392 dated 30.9.2009 and consequent proceedings under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC are quashed.

Parkash Chand and Another Vs State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18945 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18945 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 4, 2010

¶5

Parkash Chand & another

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & another

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person.

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.392 dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420,120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Sadar Mohali, District- SAS Nagar and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶16

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

¶17

Respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court and has been identified by S.I. Raghbir Singh, who has come to assist the learned State counsel. Respondent No.2 has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. He has also tendered his affidavit as per which he has no

¶18

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18945 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶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

¶25

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18945 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

(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 exercise.”

¶28

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise 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.392 dated 30.9.2009, under Sections 420,120-B of IPC, Police Station Sadar Mohali, District- SAS Nagar and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶30

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶31

August 4, 2010 Anand

Parkash Chand and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkash Chand and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Subhash Chander Batra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Neetu Chhabra Vs Harpreet Singh Garcha etc.

Sarabjit Singh Khokhar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Shiv Karan Singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab and Ors.