Allowed

Hem Raj v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2012CRM-M/15002/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. The court found that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and held that continuing criminal proceedings was a futile exercise, ordering the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 64 dated 1.5.2012 under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Hem Raj Vs State of Punjab and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-15002 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

- 1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-15002 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.7.2012

Hem Raj

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing FIR No. 64 dated 1.5.2012 (Annexure P-1), under Section 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Rama Mandi District Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶17

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

¶18

Respondent No. 2, who is present in person along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in

¶19

CRM No. M-15002 of 2012 (O&M) - 2-

¶20

question is ordered to be quashed. Respondent No.2 has also tendered his affidavit wherein he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶21

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶28

CRM No. M-15002 of 2012 (O&M)

¶29

- 3-

¶30

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.”

¶31

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.

¶32

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 64 dated 1.5.2012 under Section 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Rama Mandi District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶33

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶34

July 10, 2012 Gurpreet

Hem Raj v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Raj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

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

Manpreet Singh Alias Manna Vs State of Punjab

Roshan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Commander Poultries etc. Vs M/S Singla Trading Co.

Wilson Vs State of Punjab