High Court quashed an FIR for cheating and criminal conspiracy based on a bona fide compromise between the accused and the complainant, finding no useful purpose in continuing criminal proceedings.
FIR No. 120 dated 14.8.2007 and all consequential proceedings are quashed regarding the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2013 (O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.10.2013
Surender Prashar and others ............................... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and Another ...........................Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1
Mr. Bijender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2
RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.120 dated 14.8.2007 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad (Annexure P1) is being sought on the basis of compromise dated 20.2.2013 (Annexure P-2).
The FIR has been registered on the statement made by Rajinder Kumar Bhola alleging that he wanted to buy a plot for his own use. All the accused mentioned in the FIR had made an attempt to sell the plot measuring 16 marlas situated in Tehsil & District Faridabad to the complainant at the rate as 10000/- per sq. yard which was later on decreased to 8,000/- per sq. yard. `
Kaur Rupinder 2013.10.11 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2013 (O&M) [ 2 ]
4 lacs was given as advance to them. Subsequently, he came to know that these persons were trying to sell the plot of someone else to the complainant. On seeking the return of the earnest money, they refused to return it. In this background, the FIR was registered.
After investigation a cancellation report was prepared. Thereafter, a further investigation was ordered and at this stage, a compromise was effected between the parties vide Annexure P2 dated 20.2.2013.
In compliance of the order dated 3.5.2013, status report dated 1.10.2013 has been sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Faridabad. As per this report, statement of the parties have been recorded to the effect that with the intervention of the respectables, they have compromised the matter. The complainant also stated that nothing is outstanding and he has no objection if the FIR in the present case is quashed.
In view of the statement of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.
Consequently, in view of the above circumstances and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Aboot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C.C. 582 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3)
Kaur Rupinder 2013.10.11 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2013 (O&M) [ 3 ] RCR (Crl.) 1052, FIR No. 120 dated 14.8.2007 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad (Annexure P1) is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
The petition is disposed of.
7.10.2013 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE
Kaur Rupinder 2013.10.11 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC should be quashed in view of a genuine compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Aboot vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶20
Madan Mohan Aboot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C.C. 582 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶20
Kulwinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
Surender Prashar and others
State of Haryana
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
