Allowed

Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2012CRM-M/14682/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC to dismiss criminal proceedings under various IPC sections based on the parties' compromise, relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents establishing that power extends beyond matrimonial disputes when ends of justice require it.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 416 and all subsequent proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 191, 193, 120-B IPC were quashed.

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14682 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14682 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 9.7.2012

Gurmit Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶13

Mr.D.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

Respondent No.2 in person along with Mr.S.P.Paul, Advocate.

¶15

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 416 dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 191, 193 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶18

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

¶19

Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise effected between

¶20

¶21

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14682 of 2012 (O&M)

¶22

the parties and has tendered his affidavit, wherein he has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶23

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.

¶24

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant

¶25

vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC

¶26

192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶27

“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

¶28

¶29

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14682 of 2012 (O&M)

¶30

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

¶31

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated 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.”

¶32

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 416 dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 191 193 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶34

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶35

July 09, 2012 anita

Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Tribune Trust and Ors. Vs Jarnail Singh Mahal and Anr.

Hamir Singh and Anr. Vs Shamsher Singh

Kuljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Lajpat Rai @ Lazee and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Manpreet Singh Alias Manna Vs State of Punjab

Jasjit Kaur Gill Vs State of Punjab and Anr.