Allowed

Puran Chand and Ors. v. Ut, Chd. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2010CRM-M/19918/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings under the IPC. The High Court held that a genuine compromise between parties, even regarding non-compoundable offences, makes the continuation of criminal proceedings a futile exercise, allowing quashing to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 155 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Puran Chand and Ors. Vs Ut, Chd. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M- 19918 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9.2010

¶3

Puran Chand and others

¶4

......Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

U.T.Chandigarh and another

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Gautam Kaile, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

The complainant in person along with his counsel Mr.Raj Kishore, Advocate.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 155 dated 23.6.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 448/ 453/ 380/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M- 19918 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶17

parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area. The petitioners have purchased the house in question.

¶18

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court in person along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2) between the parties and has tendered his affidavit, as per which he has no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

¶19

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.

¶20

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant

¶21

vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC

¶22

192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶23

“23. 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

¶24

Crl.Misc.No.M- 19918 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶25

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 facets. 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?

¶26

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (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.”

¶27

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 155 Crl.Misc.No.M- 19918 of 2010 (O&M) -4-

¶29

dated 23.6.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 448/ 453/ 380/ 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶30

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶31

September 14, 2010

¶32

anita

Puran Chand and Ors. v. Ut, Chd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Chand and Ors. v. Ut, Chd. 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

Pardeep Jain Vs Jagdish Jain and Ors.

Yayavaram Nageshwar Parsad Vs State of Haryana

Bhupinder Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harmander Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Jagbir Singh Alias Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab