Allowed

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Dec 2010CRM-M/30568/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings for cheating and forgery upon the filing of a compromise petition. The Court held that Section 482 CrPC empowers it to quash non-compoundable offences to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 132 dated 5.7.2010 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Salem Tabri Ludhiana were quashed qua all the accused.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-30568 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-30568 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:December 06, 2010

¶5

Balwinder Singh

¶6

...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶10

Present: Mr.Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General Punjab Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3

¶11

¶12

Sabina, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.132 dated 5.7.2010 under Sections 420, 465,467,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Salem Tabri, Ludhiana (Annexure P1) and all other proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2).

¶14

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

¶15

Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in person along with their counsel and have submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and they have no objection if the FIR in question is

¶16

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-30568 of 2010

¶18

ordered to be quashed qua all the accused. Affidavits in this regard of respondents No. 2 and 3 have been placed on record.

¶19

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

¶20

Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,

¶21

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. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶23

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

¶24

Criminal Misc. No. M-30568 of 2010

¶25

¶26

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated

¶27

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.”

¶28

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.

¶29

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 132 dated 5.7.2010 under Sections 420, 465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Salem Tabri Ludhiana (Anneuxre P1) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed qua all the accused.

¶30

( Sabina ) Judge

¶31

December 06, 2010

¶32

arya

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 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

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

Pushap Raj Vs State of Haryana & Anr.