Allowed

Davinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2014CRM-M/12443/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The Court held that since the dispute was civil in nature, parties had settled amicably, the loan was repaid, and a no objection certificate was obtained, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 15 dated 23.1.2004 under Sections 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings.

Davinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-12443 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-12443 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.10.2014.

¶5

Davinder Singh and another

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 15 dated 23.1.2004, under Section 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Learned counsel has further submitted that the loan taken by the petitioners from the bank has since been repaid.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 6 has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has submitted that the said respondents have no objection if the FIR

¶17

in question is ordered to be quashed. Affidavits of respondents

¶18

GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-12443 of 2013 (O&M)

¶20

-2 -

¶21

No. 2 to 6 in this regard are already on record.

¶22

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by Assistant Sub Inspector Harpal Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have repaid the bank loan and in this regard, they have been granted 'no objection certificate' by the bank.

¶23

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶24

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543 , has held as under:-

¶25

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

¶26

GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M-12443 of 2013 (O&M)

¶28

-3 -

¶29

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, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family

¶30

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,

¶31

GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

Crl. Misc. No. M-12443 of 2013 (O&M) -4 -

¶33

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.”

¶34

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶35

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 15 dated 23.1.2004, under Section 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶36

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶37

October 14, 2014 GURPREET SINGH Gurpreet 2014.10.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Davinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & 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

Hari Krishan Vs Rajinder Singh

Gurjit Singh @ Jeeta Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Resham Singh Vs Gulab Singh and Ors.

Manoj Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Sankalap Bali and Ors. Vs State of Punjab Adn Arn