Allowed

Ramjeet v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2012CRM-M/27104/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition to quash an FIR and consequent proceedings involving cheating and forgery charges. The court relied on a voluntary compromise recorded by a Magistrate between the petitioner and the complainant, citing that continued trial would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 115 dated 26.03.2010 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

Ramjeet Vs State of Haryana and Others — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-27104 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-27104 of 2012 Date of Decision : November 17, 2012

Ramjeet

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Jangvir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.115 dated 26.03.2010, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471,IPC, registered at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

¶16

Vide order dated 04.09.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, on 18.09.2012 for getting their respective statements with regard to the compromise recorded. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, 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.3 and petitioner-Ramjeet did appear before the learned court below and

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-27104 of 2012 2

¶19

got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The report to that effect has also been received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. Ishwar Dayal-respondent No.3 stated that he had lodged the impugned FIR in which he had effected a compromise with the petitioner. He further stated that he had no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed. Ramjeet-petitioner also suffered statement with regard to compromise. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, reveals that the statement suffered by respondent No.3-complainant was voluntary one.

¶20

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

¶21

Heard.

¶22

It is a case of personal nature. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 has been sorted out and a compromise has been effected. The statements of respondent No.3/complainant and the petitioner have already been recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. The report received from the said Court reveals that the statements so suffered by the private parties were voluntary one. Taking into

¶23

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M-27104 of 2012

¶25

consideration the above facts, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak, therefore, pendency of FIR and the continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶26

Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the judgment rendered 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.115 dated 26.03.2010, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471,IPC, registered at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶27

November 17, 2012 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

Ramjeet v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjeet v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Pritam Chand Vs Bhagwan and Others

Majit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Supreem Singh Vs State of Punjab

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

Balwinder Singh Vs Nachhatar Singh

Hardip Singh Vs State of Punjab