Allowed

Ram Dhari and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Oct 2010CRM-M/20503/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of FIR for cheating and forgery. Court noted successful compromise between parties via Panchayat. Relying on precedent allowing quashing in personal disputes upon compromise, Court allowed petition and quashed FIR and proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 798 dated 03.12.2009 and further proceedings arising out of same were quashed.

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

¶1

CRM No. M 20503 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 20503 of 2010

¶4

Date of decision: 26.10.2010

¶5

Ram Dhari and others ........ Petitioners Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG, Haryana for the respondent State

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Dhiman, Advocate for the complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 798 dated 03.12.2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Civil Line, Karnal which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 19.04.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

Complainant - Arvind Kumar son of Singh Ram along with his counsel is present in Court today.

¶19

CRM No. M 20503 of 2010 2

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also filed an affidavit of the complainant in Court today, stating therein that with the intervention of the Panchayat members, the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶21

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 observed as under:-

¶22

“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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶23

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶24

“6. We need to emphasize 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

¶25

CRM No. M 20503 of 2010 3

¶26

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.”

¶27

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties

¶28

without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶29

Taking into account the allegations as well as affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 798 dated 03.12.2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, P S Civil Line, Karnal and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶33

26.10.2010 mohan

Ram Dhari and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dhari 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

Charnjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mona Aggarwal Vs Income Tax Officer

John D. Costa@Bila Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ram Dhari Vs State of Haryana

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sonu Kumar @ Soni Vs State of Haryana and Anr.