Allowed

Manav Chandra & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2012CRM-M/16465/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under IPC Sections 406 and 420. Relying on trial court reports confirming a volunteer compromise between parties, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 108 dated 06.05.2010 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

Manav Chandra & Ors. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 16465 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 16465 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.04.2012

¶4

Manav Chandra and others ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Shaurya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent State

¶11

Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

¶18

No. 108 dated 06.05.2010 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Sector 10 Gurgaon which was got registered by respondent No. 2 on the basis of the compromise.

¶19

Vide order dated 30.11.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 19.12.2011 and the trial Court was also directed to record the statement of all the effected parties and record a

¶20

CRM No. M 16465 of 2010 2

¶21

finding whether any volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties or not. Report was also called for. Reminder was also sent to the trial Court in that regard.

¶22

In pursuance thereto, now, the JMIC, Gurgaon, vide its letter dated 18.04.2012 has reported that after going through the statements so made by the parties, he is of the view that volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

¶23

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶24

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-

¶25

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶26

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps

¶27

CRM No. M 16465 of 2010 3

¶28

advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶29

Taking into account the allegations as well as report of the trial Court, confirming the factum of the said compromise, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 108 dated 06.05.2010 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Sector 10 Gurgaon and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶33

19.04.2012 mohan

Manav Chandra & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manav Chandra & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Harpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Gulistan & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kulvinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rohit Parti Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Sukhdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others