Allowed

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2012CRM-M/25863/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings due to a voluntary compromise between the petitioners and the complainant, finding the chances of conviction bleak and the continued pendency an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.4 dated 07.01.2012 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

..1..

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-25863 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-25863 of 2012 Date of Decision : November 19, 2012

¶5

Bhupinder Singh & Anr.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.S.D.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rupam Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

None for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.4 dated 07.01.2012, under Sections 201, 420 and 506,IPC, registered at Police Station, Phase I, SAS Nagar Mohali, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶16

Vide order dated 27.08.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, on 04.09.2012 for getting their respective statements with regard to the compromise recorded. The said court was also directed to send his/her detailed report in that regard on or before the date fixed by this Court.

¶17

In compliance thereof, respondent No.2-Neeraj Jain as well as petitioners, namely, Bhupinder Singh and Harpreet Kaur did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise.

¶18

..2..

¶19

Criminal Misc. No.M-25863 of 2012

¶20

Respondent No.2/complainant-Neeraj Jain stated that he had lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners. He further stated that he had effected a compromise with them and the same was reduced into writing. He further stated that the compromise was voluntary one and without any pressure from any quarter. He also stated that he had no objection if the petitioners were acquitted by accepting the said compromise. The similar statements were suffered by the petitionersBhupinder Singh and Harpreet Kaur.

¶21

Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Kuldeep Singh, Police Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali, admits the factum of compromise. Learned State counsel, after going through the statements and the status report, sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The petitioners have been booked for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 420 and 506, IPC. The allegations against the petitioners are of money transaction. Respondent No.2 has amicably sorted out his dispute and effected a compromise. The statements of the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No.2 have already been recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, with regard to compromise. The report received from the said court reveals that the statements suffered by the private parties were voluntary one. Learned counsel for the State has gone through the

¶24

..3..

¶25

Criminal Misc. No.M-25863 of 2012

¶26

statements suffered by the private parties and the report submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Taking into consideration the above-said factual aspect, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak, therefore, the pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶27

Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the ratio of the judgment delivered by a Five Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.4 dated 07.01.2012, under Sections 201, 420 and 506,IPC, registered at Police Station, Phase I, SAS Nagar Mohali, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶28

November 19, 2012 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepinder Gir & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Nachhatar Singh

Hardip Singh Vs State of Punjab

Joginder Vs State of Haryana Andors

Nachattar Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Punjab