Allowed

Karan Sood Alias Bobby and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2012CRM-M/26651/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered for cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court held that a valid compromise between parties justifies quashing non-compoundable offenses to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 30 dated 31.3.2006 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Karan Sood Alias Bobby and Another Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-26651 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-26651 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.11.2012.

¶5

Karan Sood @ Bobby and another

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Daman Jeet, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

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

¶13

Mr. S.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 30 dated 31.3.2006, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station Habowal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 15.6.2012 ({Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Vide order dated 5.10.2012, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise.

¶17

In pursuance to the said order, the trial court after

¶18

-2 -

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-26651 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties appeared to be without any threat, coercion, undue influence and of their own sweet will without any pressure from anyone.

¶21

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.

¶22

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil

¶23

Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT

¶24

2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶25

“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 independently

¶26

-3 -

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M-26651 of 2012 (O&M)

¶28

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

¶29

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.”

¶30

In case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika

¶31

and another 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.13 has held as under:-

¶32

It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and

¶33

Crl. Misc. No. M-26651 of 2012 (O&M)

¶34

-4 -

¶35

the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in

¶36

Crl. Misc. No. M-26651 of 2012 (O&M) -5 -

¶37

declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.”

¶38

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶39

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 30 dated 31.3.2006, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Habowal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶40

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶41

November 16, 2012 Gurpreet

Karan Sood Alias Bobby and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Sood Alias Bobby and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Halwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Inder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Swarna Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harbans Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajinder Kaur Marwah Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.