Allowed

Malkit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2013CRM-M/10377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings. Relying on a Fuller Bench precedent, the Court held that non-compoundable offences arising from civil disputes can be quashed upon a valid compromise.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR No. 59 dated 11.02.2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

Malkit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM M-10377 of 2013

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-10377 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 23, 2013.

¶5

Malkit Singh

¶6

.......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Gagan Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Mrs. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 11.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), having been entered between the parties.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶18

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶19

CRM M-10377 of 2013

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

present FIR is result of civil dispute between the parties which has since been settled. It is further contended that petitioner is on bail and case is still pending before learned trial Court.

¶22

Respondent No.2 – complainant also appeared in person with his counsel and filed short reply by way of affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stated that he is having no objection if the FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

¶23

In appropriate cases FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab , 2007(3) RCR

¶24

(Crl.) 1052 .

¶25

In the interest of harmonious relations between the parties, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 59 dated 11.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioner Malkit Singh is, hereby, quashed.

¶26

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 23, 2013. JUDGE Sachin M.

Malkit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkit Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malkeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Veerpal Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Jagdeep Singh Alias Jaggi Vs State of Punjab

Subhash Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Raj Kumar Alias Raja Ram Vs State of Punjab