Allowed

Lal Singh @ Lally and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2012CRM-M/23197/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that while quashing solely on compromise requires complainant consent, the petitioners' case may proceed on merits under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as continued pendency appears to be an abuse of process due to complainants' conduct.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file a fresh petition to challenge the FIR and criminal proceedings on grounds other than compromise.

Lal Singh @ Lally and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM-M-23197-2010 (O&M).

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-23197-2010 (O&M). Date of decision: December 1, 2012.

¶4

Lal Singh and others

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

¶10

PRESENT Mr.Ashosk Goel, Adv., for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Ankur Jain, AAG., Punjab.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioners, on the basis of compromise, seek the quashing of FIR No.70 dated 24.6.2006, under Sections 498-A & 506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Dirba, District Sangrur.

¶14

Affidavit of respondent No.2 wife of petitioner No.1

¶15

has been placed on record.

¶16

Notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 & 3. It is reported that respondent Nos.2 & 3, had refused to accept the notices but subsequently respondent No.3 put in appearance through counsel Mr.Jagmeet Singh but no power of attorney was filed despite his undertaking to place on record Vakalatnama.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners submits that a sum of 3 lacs had been received by the complainant party and that respondent No.2 Bikkar Singh had appeared before the Lok Adalat at Sunam on

¶18

¶19

CRM-M-23197-2010 (O&M).

¶20

6.12.2008 and made a statement that he had compromised the matter with the accused and was satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police and that he does not have any objection in case the cancellation report was accepted but the Lok Adalat expressed its inability to dispose of the matter and ordered that the matter should be returned to the concerned Court. Thereafter, the cancellation report was submitted on 11.5.2012. Bikkar Singh, respondent No.2, appears to have again appeared before the Court on 11.5.2012 and had stated that he was not satisfied with the cancellation report but he did not file any protest petition. The IIlaqua Magistrate, Ms.Balwinder Kaur Dhaliwal, had returned the cancellation report with a direction to reinvestigate the matter.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR against the petitioners can be quashed on the basis of compromise because after having compromised the matter, complainant-respondent Nos.2 & 3, are running away and are avoiding the dropping of the proceedings against the petitioners with an objective to harass the petitioners.

¶22

After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through the petition, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition for quashing of FIR has been filed specifically on the basis that the matter has been compromised. A petition can be quashed on the basis of compromise only if respondent Nos.2 & 3, come forward to admit the matter having been compromised. The

¶23

¶24

CRM-M-23197-2010 (O&M).

¶25

circumstances mentioned hereinabove indicate that conduct of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is not fair but in these circumstances, the petitioners can seek the quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on merits and on the basis of above said circumstances as prima facie the continuation of proceedings and the pendency of FIR against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the law.

¶26

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition to challenge the FIR and the criminal proceedings on the grounds other than the ground of compromise. Copy of the compromise Annexure P2 and the Affidavit Annexure P3, placed on record may be returned to the counsel for the petitioners by the Registry if an application is filed before the Registry for return of said documents. It is further observed that it will be open to the Investigating Agency to further investigate the matter and present an appropriate report in accordance with law.

¶27

(M.M.S. BEDI)

¶28

December 1, 2012. rka

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Lal Singh @ Lally and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Singh @ Lally and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kiran Bala Vs State of Punjab

Partap Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sher Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Meena Rani etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.