Allowed

Makhan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2010CRM-M/27951/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed petition for quashing FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B IPC. Court held compromise between parties warrants quashing to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, relying on judicial precedents regarding quashing in civil disputes with criminal facets.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 23 dated 17.2.2009 and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Makhan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab 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- 27951 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.12.2010

¶3

Makhan Singh and others

¶4

......Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another .......Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶8

Present: Mr.Naresh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

¶10

Mr.Narinder Lucky Advocate for Mr.JPS Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. ****

¶11

SABINA, J.

¶12

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 23 dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Mansa District Mansa and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶13

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

¶14

Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Affidavit of respondent No.2 in this regard

¶15

-2-

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M- 27951 of 2010 (O&M)

¶17

is already on record.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶21

“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 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

¶22

Crl.Misc.No.M- 27951 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶23

which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶24

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.”

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 23 dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mansa District Mansa and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶27

December 10, 2010 anita

¶28

(SABINA) JUDGE

Makhan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makhan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 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

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Aman & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Gurbhagat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manpreet Singh @ Mannu Vs State of Punjab