Allowed

Kuljit Singh @ Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2012CRM-M/2843/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a petition for quashing a FIR based on Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC, holding that the dispute arising from a land sale and dishonoured cheques had been compromised. The court applied the ratio in Kulwinder Singh to refuse refusal grounds due to procedural delays.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.286 dated 3.9.2011 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, along with consequent proceedings, are quashed on the basis of compromise. Petitioners ordered to deposit Rs. 10,000 with LS Au

Kuljit Singh @ Daljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2843 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision : July 18, 2012

¶3

Kuljit Singh @ Daljit Singh & others

¶4

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Punjab & another

¶7

..... RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

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

¶10

. . .

¶11

PRESENT: - Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

. . .

¶14

M.M.S. Bedi, J (Oral)

¶15

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.286 dated 3.9.2011 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Payal, Police District, Khanna, District Ludhiana, alongwith consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶16

The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, alleging that

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-2843 of 2012 [2]

¶18

petitioner No.1, Kuljit Singh @ Daljit Singh and petitioner No.2, Jaswant Singh had agreed to sell their land to the complainant but despite receiving the earnest money, it was sold to petitioner No.3, Harchand Singh on 5.11.2008. The cheques of returning the earnest money were dishonoured.

¶19

During the course of proceedings, it was informed that the matter has been compromised. On 29.5.2012, the following order was passed on the statement of complainant-respondent No.2 made before this Court:-

¶20

“The matter has been compromised. The parties have agreed to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs.73,00,000/-. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have got their statements recorded in Court today to the said effect. As per the statement suffered by petitioner No.1 (Kuljit Singh), he is ready and willing to settled the dispute for a sum of Rs.73,00,000/- to be paid by him to the respondent/complainant. As per the statement suffered by respondent No.2, he has no objection to the quashing of the said FIR if the petitioner pays Rs.73,00,000/- as full and final settlement. It is also stated that he and other aggrieved person, namely, Jaspal Singh and Avtar Singh shall withdraw all the civil suit and complaint pending against the petitioners.

¶21

In view of the above, adjourned to 09.07.2012. On which date, the petitioner shall bring three demand drafts for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.24,00,000/- and Rs.24,00,000/- (total Rs.73,00,000/-) in the name of Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, Jaspal Singh and Avtar Singh. In case, the petitioner brings the said amount, the parties will be bound by their statements. After receipt of the said payment, all the civil suits and the complaint and any other case filed by the petitioner, Jaspal Singh and Avtar Singh shall be withdrawn by the respondent/complainant within fortnight, failing which, the same shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.”

¶22

Today, petitioners and respondent No.2 are

¶23

present in Court and state that the matter has been compromised.

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-2843 of 2012 [3]

¶25

Challan has not yet been presented in the case. Following the ratio of judgment in Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , I do not find any ground to refuse the quashing of impugned FIR on the basis of compromise.

¶26

The petition is allowed. FIR No.286 dated 3.9.2011 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Payal, Police District, Khanna, District Ludhiana, alongwith consequent proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

¶27

Since the precious time of the Police and Court has been wasted, it is ordered that the petitioners will deposit a total sum of ` 10,000/- with Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Sector 22, Chandigarh, within a period of one month. They shall

¶28

also deposit a total sum of ` 5,000/- with Punjab Police Welfare Fund, Sector 9, Chandigarh, within the aforesaid period.

¶29

(M.M.S. Bedi) July 18, 2012 Judge avin

Kuljit Singh @ Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuljit Singh @ Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

Sarwan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Avtar Chamak Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Iqbal Singh and Anr. Vs Superitending Canal Officer and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daya Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab through Secy. and Ors.

Ravinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.