Allowed

Ujjal Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2013CRM-M/37904/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the court quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings for cheating under section 420 IPC. The court held that since the offence was compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C. and the settlement was found to be just, fair, and free from undue pressure, quashing served the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 489 dated 28.12.2006 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Ujjal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-37904 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-37904 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 11^th , 2013

Ujjal Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present Mr. N.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab, for the State.

¶13

Mr. A.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Ujjal Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 489 dated 28.12.2006 registered at Police Station Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar for an offence punishable under section 420 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise (Annexure P1).

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.M-37904 of 2012

¶17

¶18

Besides State counsel, respondent no. 2 represented by his counsel, Mr. A.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate is appearing before the court. Komalpreet Singh has been identified by Raja Singh, Head Constable, Police Station City Kharar as complainant of this case. He has also filed short reply by way of his affidavit asserting that the matter stands compromised between the parties.

¶19

It is a case where the offence punishable section 420 is compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C with the permission of the court and the proceedings in such a case can be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, it is to be kept in mind while quashing the proceedings that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit . Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is free from undue pressure. Once it is found that the compromise is just and fair and is not brought about by undue pressure of one party on the other, then the court has to see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or that it would prevent abuse of process of law. The compromise in this case clearly appears to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears to the court to be suggestive of pressure, much less undue pressure on the complainant for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be taken by any party in the matter of compromise.

¶20

Thus, keeping in view the fact that the parties have settled the dispute and that the settlement between them is just and fair, brought about without undue pressure from any one and that the same would be securing the ends of justice, I accept the petition and quash FIR No.

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-37904 of 2012

¶22

¶23

489 dated 28.12.2006 registered at Police Station Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar for an offence punishable under section 420 IPC along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

¶24

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶25

February 11^th , 2013 som

Ujjal Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujjal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh Vs the Addl.Director of Consolidation Punjab and Ors.

Gurmail Singh and Anr. Vs Director Rural Developments and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab Thru Secy of Govt. Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs Addl Director C/H etc.

Gurdev Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab

Ram Saroop Vs State of Punjab