The court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC after finding that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant was amicably settled through a compromise evidenced by a judicial report.
FIR No.154 dated 8.10.2011 and all subsequent proceedings arising from it are quashed qua the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-19810 of 2016
.....
Date of decision:3.12.2016
Kulwant Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Virk, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Ms. Upasana Dhawan, Advocate for the complainantrespondent No.2.
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.154 dated 8.10.2011 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).
The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantGurcharan Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioner has cheated him. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably settled and compromise has been entered into between the parties,
Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.12.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-19810 of 2016
[2]
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, Gurdaspur has sent his report dated 17.8.2016 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondent 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.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.
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.
Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been 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
Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.12.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-19810 of 2016
[3]
petition is allowed and FIR No.154 dated 8.10.2011 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
December 3, 2016. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No
Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.12.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered for cheating offences should be quashed in the interest of justice given the compromise between parties.
Whether the continuation of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility after the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶25
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulwant Singh
State of Punjab
Gurcharan Singh
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
