Allowed

Mangal Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2012CRM-M/22922/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC for alleging coercion in a sale deed when the parties had amicably compromised the matter. Relying on settled law regarding quashing in cases with genuine compromises, the single-judge bench allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 38 dated 10.03.2012 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same were quashed.

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

¶1

CRM No. M 22922 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 22922 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.02.2012

¶4

Mangal Dass 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. S S Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana

¶11

Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement 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 No. 38 dated 10.03.2012 under section 406, 420 (Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC added lateron), P S Pinjore, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 14.06.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel. He

¶19

CRM No. M 22922 of 2011 2

¶20

filed his affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that the aforesaid FIR was got registered by him. Now with the intervention of the respectables persons and relatives, the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶21

The allegations in the present case are that petitioner No. 1 after having colluded with petitioners No. 2 and 3, got executed a sale deed dated 04.04.2002 in his favour, whereas, the complainant only wanted to execute mortgage. On the written complaint of respondent No. 2, the aforesaid FIR was got registered against the present petitioners. Now, as per the parties, the matter has been amicably compromised and the complainant does not want to pursue the litigation any more. As such, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in the present case, would be nothing but a sheer misuse of process of law.

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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.”

¶24

CRM No. M 22922 of 2011 3

¶25

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:-

¶26

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps 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.”

¶27

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶28

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant, 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.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 38 dated 10.03.2012 under section 406, 420 (sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC added later on), P S Pinjore, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶30

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶32

14.02.2012 mohan

Mangal Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Dass & 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

Bachittar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Anit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Bachittar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sarabjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balwinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab