Allowed

Kamal Kumar Alias Kamal Kumar Manera v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Apr 2014CRM-M/10638/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, considering that the accused and complainant had amicably settled a cheque dishonour dispute arising from a commercial transaction, quashed the FIR and discharged the accused as continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 121 dated 14.10.2010 and all proceedings arising therefrom; discharged the petitioner/accused.

Kamal Kumar Alias Kamal Kumar Manera Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-10638 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M- 10638 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.04.2014

¶5

Professor Kamal Kumar @ Kamal Kumar Manera

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.J.B.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. A.P.S. Gill, A.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. *****

¶14

MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioner, the accused, in First Information Report (for short, FIR) No. 121 dated 14.10.2010, (Annexure P-2) under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') (presently Section 420 IPC having been deleted) registered at Police Station, Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, seeks quashing of the FIR saying that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the Complainant/ respondent No.2, as evidenced by the deed of compromise (Annexure P-1).

¶16

Vide order dated 27.08.2013, learned trial Court was asked to record statements of the parties and submit its report as

¶17

Anju 2014.04.11 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-10638 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

regards the authenticity and correctness of the compromise stated to have been reached between the parties. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur has submitted a report dated 28.12.2013, affirming that the compromise (Annexure P-1) is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/ coercion.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he has no objection if the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned State counsel has no objection to the acceptance of the petition.

¶22

FIR was lodged at the instance of complainant Surinder Singh against the present petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.2 lacs and Rs.6 lacs for sending complainant's son to England and executed an agreement in lieu of the same. In pursuance of the said agreement, 6 cheques were issued which were deposited. However, despite having instructed the respondent No.2 by the petitioner not to present the said cheques, the same were presented and dishonoured. Now, in the compromise, he has said that the matter has been amicably settled vide compromise deed Annexure P-1.

¶23

From the above it is established that parties to the lis have resolved the inter se dispute amicably and have resolved to live in peace and harmony.

¶24

Reference may be made to a Five-Judges Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Crl.) 1052:2007(3) PLR 439:2007(2) ILR (Punjab) 338:2007(3)

¶25

Anju 2014.04.11 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-10638 of 2011

¶27

-3-

¶28

AICLR 818:2007(4) CCR 280:2007(59) AIC 435:2007(4) CTC 769:

¶29

2007(4) KLT 245 , wherein it has been held as under:

¶30

“27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶31

The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is " finest hour of justice ". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.

¶32

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Criminal Procedure Code which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same

¶33

Anju 2014.04.11 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-10638 of 2011

¶35

-4-

¶36

cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶37

The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”

¶38

It may also be of benefit to extract from Gian Singh v.

¶39

State of Punjab, (SC)2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 549:2012(4) RCR(Crl.) 543:2012(5) CTC 526:2012 Ker.LJ 141:2012(4) KLT 108:2012(4) Law Herald (SC) 3025:2012(5) Knt.LJ 476: 2012(4) Cri.CC 774:2012 (10) SCC 303:2012 AIR (SC)(Cri) 1796: 2012(CriLJ 4934:2012(4) AICLR 551:2012(4)

¶40

Anju 2014.04.11 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-10638 of 2011

¶42

-5-

¶43

Crimes (SC) 155:2012(9) SCALE 257:2012(2) WLC (SC) Criminal

¶44

753, following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

¶45

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in

¶46

quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,

¶47

Anju 2014.04.11 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

CRM-M-10638 of 2011

¶49

-6-

¶50

financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶51

It is anybody’s guess that after the parties having entered into a compromise, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that being so continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice. Rather it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, or say abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Ends of justice would be met only if the criminal proceedings are put to an

¶52

end because this would allow the parties to translate their desire to

¶53

Anju 2014.04.11 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

CRM-M-10638 of 2011

¶55

-7-

¶56

live in peace into reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to bury the hatchet for all times to come. The compromise is also found to be in the interest of public at large, for, it will add to the peace of the society and will promote peaceful co-existence. The Courts are bound to play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

¶57

In the consequence, I accept the petition, quash the FIR in question along with proceedings arising therefrom and discharge the petitioner/accused from the proceedings.

¶58

(MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶59

April 07, 2014 anju

¶60

Anju 2014.04.11 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kamal Kumar Alias Kamal Kumar Manera v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar Alias Kamal Kumar Manera v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Nirmal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Karnail Chand Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ritika and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jagdish Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Partap Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sharanbir Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.