Allowed

Lovelesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2014CRM-M/36769/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR involving cheating, forgery, and cheque dishonour. Relying on Gian Singh, the court held that since a genuine compromise was reached and the dispute involved commercial/financial transactions of a private nature, continuance of prosecution was futile. The quashing was based on the genuine settlement between partie

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.171 dated 24.5.2012 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 25.10.2013.

Lovelesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-36769 of 2013

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:24.2.2014

¶5

Lovelesh Kumar Aggarwal

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

¶8

U.T., Chandigarh and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.

¶12

Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate for the complainantrespondent No.2.

¶13

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶14

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.171 dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure-P.2).

¶15

The FIR has been registered on the statement of Col. Subhash Chander Kohar (Retd.) as cheques issued by the petitioner for repayment of the loan amount were dishonoured and there are also allegation about some business transactions. Now with the intervention of respectable

¶16

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.26 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Cr. M. Nos.M-36769 of 2013

¶18

[2]

¶19

persons and friends, compromise has been entered into between the parties and the dispute has been resolved amicably.

¶20

On 15.1.2014, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh was directed to send his report before this Court regarding genuineness/ validity of the compromise, who vide his report dated 11.2.2014 has verified the genuineness of the compromise after recording the statements of all the concerned parties. Complainant Col. Subhash Chander Kohar has admitted the factum of compromise with the petitioner. He has also admitted that the compromise has been effected with his own free will and consent and without any coercion or undue pressure and he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶21

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have compromised the matter, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not

¶23

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.26 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Cr. M. Nos.M-36769 of 2013

¶25

[3]

¶26

compoundable. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No.171 dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure-P.2).

¶27

February 24, 2014.

¶28

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶29

hsp

¶30

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.26 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Lovelesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovelesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.

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

Narinder Isngh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dawinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Monika and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab