Allowed

Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2012CRM-M/15021/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for cheating under Section 420 IPC based on a compromise. The High Court allowed the petition, relying on Full Bench precedent and Supreme Court authority that non-matricial disputes can be quashed via Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice ends.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 61 dated 11.7.2011 under Section 420 IPC and all subsequent proceedings qua all accused are quashed.

Roshan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15021 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15021 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 10.7.2012

¶6

Roshan Lal @ Raju

¶7

......Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr.S.K.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.K.D.S.Sandhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab.

¶13

Respondents No.2 to 5 are in person along with Mr.M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate,

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 61 dated 11.7.2011 (Annexure P-1), under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Dhariwal District Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶17

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. The entire payment in question has been made to respondents No.2 to 5.

¶18

Respondents No.2 to 5 are present in person along with their counsel and have stated that they have received the entire payment in question. They have admitted the factum of compromise

¶19

¶20

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15021 of 2012 (O&M)

¶21

arrived at between the parties and the contents of their affidavits on record. They have further stated that they have no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed qua all the accused.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

“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

¶27

¶28

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15021 of 2012 (O&M)

¶29

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

¶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 these proceedings to continue.

¶32

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 61 dated 11.7.2011 (Annexure P-1), under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Dhariwal District Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua all the accused, are quashed.

¶33

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶34

July 10, 2012 anita

Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal 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

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

Hem Raj Vs State of Punjab and Another

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

Wilson Vs State of Punjab