Allowed

Gaurav Bhatia and Another v. State of U T Chandigarh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2016CRM-M/10522/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applying Supreme Court law in Gian Singh. Petitioners successfully quashed an FIR for cheating and cyber offences based on a genuine, voluntary compromise settled between the parties.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.397 dated 24.9.2014 registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Gaurav Bhatia and Another Vs State of U T… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-10522 of 2016

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:30.5.2016

¶5

Gaurav Bhatia and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

Union Territory, Chandigarh and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Ashima Mor, A.P.P., U.T. for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. Neeraj Madan, Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2.

¶15

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.397 dated 24.9.2014 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 66-A of Information and Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantManinder Grover on the allegations that the accused-petitioners by hatching conspiracy have cheated him. Now with the intervention of respectable

¶18

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.06.01 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-10522 of 2016

¶20

[2]

¶21

persons, the matter has been amicably settled and compromise has been entered into between the parties, therefore, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has sent his report dated 20.5.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

¶22

Learned A.P.P., U.T. Chandigarh, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P., U.T. Chandigarh and learned counsel for complainantrespondent No.2 and have gone through the record.

¶24

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

¶25

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been

¶26

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.06.01 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Misc. No.M-10522 of 2016

¶28

[3]

¶29

amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.397 dated 24.9.2014 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 66A of Information and Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶30

May 30, 2016.

¶31

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶32

hsp

¶33

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.06.01 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Gaurav Bhatia and Another v. State of U T Chandigarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Bhatia and Another v. State of U T Chandigarh 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

Sarabjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rajender Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Maya Devi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Geeta Rani Vs Parveen Kumari and Anr.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Kulwant Singh @ Bitta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.