Allowed

Rahul Goyal v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Nov 2016CRM-M/20312/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 279, 337, and 427 IPC. The Supreme Court legal principles support quashing when a genuine compromise exists, allowing the petitioner to avoid pointless prosecution.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.298 dated 25.5.2016 registered for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

Rahul Goyal Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-20312 of 2016

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision15.11.2016

Rahul Goyal

.....Petitioner

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶14

Mr. Mukesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainantrespondents No.2 and 3.

¶15

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.298 dated 25.5.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantDr. Vivek Talwar on the allegations that due to the negligence of the accused-petitioner accident took place in which damage was caused to Honda car of the complainant. Due to the accident the glass of main gate of the hospital was also broken which scattered upon the watchman on duty

¶18

and thus caused facial injuries to him. Now with the intervention of

¶19

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.11.16 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Cr. Misc. No.M-20312 of 2016

¶21

[2]

¶22

respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.

¶23

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri 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.

¶24

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondents No.2 and 3 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.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and learned counsel for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 and have gone through the record.

¶26

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

¶27

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.11.16 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Cr. Misc. No.M-20312 of 2016

¶29

[3]

¶30

conviction are bleak.

¶31

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 petition is allowed and FIR No.298 dated 25.5.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶32

November 15, 2016. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶33

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.11.16 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rahul Goyal v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Goyal v. State of Haryana & 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

Sandhya Gupta Vs Nirmal Sharma

Pardeep Singh Vs Baljinder Singh

Boota Singh @ Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Akash Malhotra and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Tajendra Vs Ramesh Chand Sharma and Ors.

Bagga Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.