Allowed

Rakesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2010CRM-M/22048/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, citing earlier High Court and Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing of non-cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.504 dated 30.5.2010 and consequent proceedings arising therefrom under IPC and Arms Act are quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 22048 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 22048 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 24, 2010

Rakesh and another

........Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

Respondent No.2 in person.

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.504 dated 30.5.2010, under Sections 285,307,506,34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station City Hissar, District Hissar and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the parties have lodged FIRs against each other. Now the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and friends.

¶19

Respondent No.2, who is present in person in the Court along

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M- 22048 of 2010 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Respondent No.2 has tendered his reply by way of an affidavit and as per the same he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 :-

¶25

“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

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M- 22048 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

at, should at all be exercised?

¶29

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 (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.”

¶30

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.

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.504 dated 30.5.2010, under Sections 285,307,506,34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station City Hissar, District Hissar and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶32

September 24, 2010 Anand

¶33

(SABINA) JUDGE

Rakesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Wazir Mohmad Vs State of Punjab

Umesh Kumar Vs Ranjeet

Vijay K Thapar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of Haryana

Bhushan Kumar Vs Brij Mohan Bhardwaj