Allowed

Mekson and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2010CRM-M/27997/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and consequent proceedings based on a compromise between parties. Relying on precedents, the Court held that quashing is not limited to matrimonial disputes and is warranted to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.66 dated 21.8.2010 under Sections 326,324,341,506,34 IPC and consequent proceedings are quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 27997 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 27997 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 3, 2010

Mekson and others

........Petitioners

Versus

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

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present : Mr. H.J. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

Respondent No.2 in person.

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.66 dated 21.8.2010, under Sections 326,324,341,506,34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Division No.3, District Ludhiana and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶17

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

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M- 27997 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

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 if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Affidavit of respondent No.2 in this regard has been placed on record.

¶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

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M- 27997 of 2010 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶27

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.”

¶28

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.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.66 dated 21.8.2010, under Sections 326,324,341,506,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.3, District Ludhiana and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶30

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶31

December 3, 2010 Anand

Mekson and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekson 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

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Singh Vs Gurmit Singh

Deepak @ Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana

Rashim Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Pb., and Anr.

Gurvinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.