Quashed

Chandan Arora and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2012CRM-M/33932/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a criminal FIR registered under IPC sections related to cheques and forgery. The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise reached between the parties, with the complainant explicitly stating no objection to the quashing of the case.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 281 dated 25.08.2007 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

Chandan Arora and Anr. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 33932 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 33932 of 2011 Date of decision: 01.02.2012

¶4

Chandan Arora and another ` ........ petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. D K Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent - State

¶11

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pundir, Advocate for respondent No. 4 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 281 dated 25.08.2007 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P S Division No. 4, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 4 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 28.10.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

The complainant who is present in Court along with his counsel

¶19

CRM No. M 33932 of 2011 2

¶20

has filed his reply by way of affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that the aforesaid FIR was got registered by him. Now with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶21

In the present case, some misunderstanding between the parties led to filing of the said FIR. Now, from the above reply, it is clear that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and do not want to pursue the litigation any more.

¶22

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-

¶23

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶24

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶25

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in

¶26

CRM No. M 33932 of 2011 3

¶27

criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶28

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶29

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as reply by way of affidavit of complainant/respondent No. 4, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 281 dated 25.08.2007 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC P S Division No. 4, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶33

01.02.2012 mohan

Chandan Arora and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Arora and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajender Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Karnail Singh Vs Union Territory of Chandigah and Anr.

Dharambir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Golu Singh & Ors,. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.