Allowed

Pushap Raj v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Dec 2010CRM-M/30269/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, sought quashing of an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust based on a compromise. The court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings as parties had settled and continuing prosecution would serve no useful purpose, relying on precedents allowing quashing in non-matrimonial disputes upon settlement.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.610 dated 30.10.2006 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and consequent proceedings were quashed.

Pushap Raj Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 30269 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 30269 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 6, 2010

Pushap Raj

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ........Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

Respondent No.2 in person.

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.610 dated 30.10.2006, under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station City Karnal and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶17

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

¶18

Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with his

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 30269 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Respondent No.2 has also admitted the contents of his affidavit (Annexure P-1) and has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 :-

¶24

“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

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M- 30269 of 2010 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

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.”

¶29

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.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.610 dated 30.10.2006, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City Karnal and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶31

December 6, 2010 Anand

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

Pushap Raj v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushap Raj v. State of Haryana & 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

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

Mekson and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Kunti Devi Vs State of Punjab

Virender Singh Vs State of Haryana

Pritam Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.