The High Court quashed FIR No.169 and consequential proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy. The dispute between the petitioner/accused and the complainant company was settled, making further litigation unnecessary.
FIR No.169 dated 1.6.2011 and consequential proceedings under IPC and IT Act quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No.M-1448 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-1448 of 2012 Date of decision:24.05.2012
Mr.I A Quadri
...Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Administration U.T. Chandigarh and another
...Respondents
CRM No.M-36093 of 2011
Ajai Singh Takhar & another
...Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Administration U.T. Chandigarh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.Rohit Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM No.M1448 of 2012.
Mr.Amit Rawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepak Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners in CRM No.M-36093 of 2011
Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for UT Chandigarh.
None for the complainant.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
CRM No.31734 of 2012
CM is allowed. Annexures P-13 and P-14 are taken on
record.
Main case(s)
By this common order, Crl. Misc.No. M- 1448 of 2012 &
2
CRM No.M-1448 of 2012
Crl. Misc. No. M- 36093 of 2012 shall be decided together wherein prayer is for quashing of FIR No.169 dated 1.6.2011 under Sections 408 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66/72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Sector-17, District Chandigarh and the proceedings consequential thereto are being sought.
As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant Company is doing the business of engineering good such as bicycles, bicycles parts, tyres and tubes, confectionary, Solar products etc. The company is having its godown at Ludhiana from where the exports orders are executed. The Chandigarh Office is handling purchase and marketing operations of the company. Mr.I.A.Quadri and Mr.Ajai Singh who are employees of the company, based at Chandigarh and are handling export marketing of the company since last 15 years. During last month, the respondent/company learnt that these officials are stealing the data and utilizing the same for their own benefit illegally. One of the employees of respondent company Mr.Rajeev Nanda, left on 15.4.2011 and he is also involved in this activity. Thus, both connived to deprive valuable property of the company i.e. the goodwill and valuable customers and thus caused financial loss to the company. In this background, the impugned FIR was registered.
Now, the matter has been settled, which is evident from compromise dated 31.8.2011 (Annexure P-2).
In compliance of the order of this Court dated 7.3.2012, status report has been received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh in CRM No.M-36093 of 2011. As per the status report,
CRM No.M-1448 of 2012
3
statements of both the parties were recorded. As per the statement of Kuldeep Kaul, Annexure P-14, who is authorised representative of M/s Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. to settle the proceedings in FIR in question vide resolution dated 29.8.2011, which is placed on record as Ex. PX. He stated that the matter has been compromised by him with the accused persons with his free will and without an pressure. To the same effect, the joint statement of accused persons Mr.I.A.Quadri, Ajai Singh Takbar and Rajeev Nanda were recorded. It has been mentioned in the report that the compromised arrived at between the parties is voluntarily.
After going through the status report, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation as the dispute between the parties has been settled.
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C.C. 582 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, FIR No.169 dated 1.6.2011 under Sections 408 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66/72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Sector-17, District Chandigarh and the proceedings consequential thereto are quashed qua the petitioners.
The petitions stand disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
24.05.2012 mks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No.169 and consequential proceedings under IPC and IT Act should be quashed in view of a valid settlement between the accused and the complainant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabApplied¶37
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C.C. 582 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of PunjabApplied¶37
Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
2 provisions across 2 enactments
I A Quadri
Chandigarh Administration
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
