Allowed

V. Subramaniam v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2013CRM-M/25842/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420. The court noted a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant regarding Section 420. Acknowledging Section 406 is non-compoundable but relying on precedents, the court quashed proceedings against the petitioner alone.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioner, V. Subramaniam, only.

V. Subramaniam Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M-25842-2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-25842-2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: December 18, 2013

V. Subramaniam

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶12

Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶15

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶16

The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, V. Subramaniam, for quashing of FIR No. 92, dated 25.5.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Bawal, District Rewari, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

¶17

Vide order dated 8.8.2013, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 19.8.2013 before the learned Chief

¶18

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶19

CRM-M-25842-2013 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to submit a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements on or before the date fixed by this Court.

¶22

In compliance of the above, the copies of the statements of the affected parties and the report has been received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though as many as five persons have been nominated as accused in the present case, however, except for respondent No. 6, no other accused could be arrested by the investigating agency. He further submits that during pendency of the investigation better sense prevailed and the complainant-respondent No. 2 sorted out his grievances with the petitioner and effected a compromise. He further submits that in compliance with the direction of this Court, the petitioner, V. Subramaniam, as well as the complainant-respondent No. 2, Vikram Singh, did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, and suffered their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The report received from the learned Court below is very categoric that the compromise so effected is voluntary one.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

¶24

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶25

CRM-M-25842-2013 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, is compoundable with the permission of the Court while the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, is not compoundable, therefore, present petition in terms of Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been presented for quashing of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. He further contends that the co-accused of the petitioner have not proposed to join hands with him (petitioner) in this petition, therefore, the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed qua him only. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court delivered in the cases of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 256 , and Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-206132012, decided on 10.10.2012) . Regarding quashing of the FIR relating to the non-compoundable offences, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543, and a 5-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 .

¶28

On the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to confusion, the complainant-

¶29

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶30

CRM-M-25842-2013 (O&M)

¶31

¶32

respondent No. 2 had lodged the report, however, to buy peace the petitioner has paid the amount which according to the complainant was lost by him.

¶33

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Dalip Singh of Economic Offences Wing, Rewari, very fairly concedes that the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 have effected a compromise. Learned counsel for the State has also gone through the copies of the statements and the report received from the learned Court below and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed on the basis of the compromise, qua petitioner.

¶34

Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 also admits the factum of the compromise. He further admits that the amount lost by the complainant-respondent No. 2 has been restored to him and, as such, he has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶36

It is true that Section 406, IPC, is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court. However, the

¶37

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶38

CRM-M-25842-2013 (O&M)

¶39

¶40

complainant-respondent No. 2 has sorted out his grievance and effected a compromise with the petitioner. The statements of the complainant-respondent No. 2 and that of the petitioner have already been recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari. In his statement, the complainant-respondent No. 2 admitted the factum of the compromise and specifically stated that he had no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. Even the learned counsel for the State and the counsel representing the complainant have also admitted the factum of the compromise. The report received from the learned Court below reveals that the compromise was voluntary one, therefore, pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioner are bleak.

¶41

There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner when he submitted that the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom can be quashed qua petitioner only. He has rightly placed reliance on Parambir Singh Gill’s case (supra) and Parveen Kumar’s case (supra) . In both the judgments, this Court had permitted partial quashing of the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶42

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶43

CRM-M-25842-2013 (O&M)

¶44

¶45

As a sequel to the above discussion and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment delivered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and a larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh (supra) , this petition is accepted and FIR No. 92, dated 25.5.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Bawal, District Rewari, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, V. Subramaniam only.

¶46

December 18, 2013 Pkapoor

¶47

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶48

Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.21 15:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order

V. Subramaniam v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Subramaniam v. State of Haryana 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

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Bikramjit Singh and Ors.

Maninder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Haryana