Allowed

Bharat Bhushan Goyal & Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2011CRM-M/1339/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The dispute was a monetary one, fully settled by payment, with the respondent accepting the compromise.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.243 dated 16.11.2010 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and subsequent proceedings quashed.

Bharat Bhushan Goyal & Another Vs State of Punjab… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM No.M-1339 of 2011(O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM No.M-1339 of 2011(O & M) Date of decision : 9.9.2011

¶6

Bharat Bhushan Goyal and another ........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

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

¶11

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) :

¶13

This petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prays for quashing of FIR No.243 dated 16.11.2010 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, on the basis of compromise deed, placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that a monitory dispute arose between respondent No.2 and the petitioners. That dispute has been settled by way of compromise. The entire amount due towards respondent No.2 has been paid by the petitioners as is recorded in compromise deed Annexure P-2.

¶15

Raj Kumar son of Shankar Das, as identified by Head Constable Jaswant Singh, present in Court, states that indeed he has received the entire money and therefore, he does not want to pursue the FIR against the petitioners. Raj Kumar also prays for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRM No.M-1339 of 2011(O & M)

¶18

Learned State counsel states that because the dispute has been settled by way of compromise, quashing of the FIR is not opposed.

¶19

Considering the fact that the dispute arose on account of money transaction and the money, due towards respondent No.2, has already been paid by the petitioners which the said respondent has accepted, in lieu of all his claims and rights, this petition is allowed.

¶20

FIR No.243 dated 16.11.2010 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶21

(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE

¶22

9.9.2011 akm

Bharat Bhushan Goyal & Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Bhushan Goyal & Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdev Singh Vs Sarbdaman Singh and Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kiran Mehta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nachhattar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Dinesh Singh @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.