Allowed

M/S Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CRM-M/10102/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR involving various IPC offences. The court relied on a compromise and settlement between the petitioner and the complainant, noting that compensation was paid, and cited Full Bench precedent regarding quashing in appropriate compromise cases.

What did the court decide?

M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and impugned FIR No. 6 dated 10.01.2013 along with all consequential proceedings were quashed.

M/S Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10102 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-10102 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision : May 28, 2013

¶6

M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana for respondent no. 1.

¶14

Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶15

¶16

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶17

Accused M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and three others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.6 dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P- 1), under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 463, 465, 506, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad, in view of compromise/Memorandum of Settlement

¶18

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-10102 of 2013

¶20

(Annexure P-2) effected with respondent no. 2 – complainant.

¶21

Reply affidavit of respondent no.2 – complainant, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶22

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant, on instructions from respondent no.2, said to be present in person in the Court, stated that parties have arrived at compromise vide Memorandum of Settlement (Annexure P-2) and respondent no. 2 has received Rs.19,58,813/- vide draft (Annexure P-3), and therefore, respondent no. 2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. It is also stated that original receipts of payment have been handed over by counsel for respondent no. 2 to counsel for the petitioners in the Court today. Affidavit of respondent no. 2 to the same effect has also been placed on record in the Court today.

¶23

In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225 .

¶24

In the instant case, there was property/money dispute between the parties, which has been amicably settled. Respondent no.2 – complainant has been compensated by paying him due amount by way of bank draft. It is, accordingly, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed.

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-10102 of 2013

¶26

¶27

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR

¶28

Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising

¶29

therefrom.

¶30

May 28, 2013

¶31