Allowed

Suresh Chander and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2016CRM-M/20408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered for cheating under Sections 420 and 406 IPC based on an amicable compromise between the parties. The court held that continued prosecution was futile and allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.156 dated 8.5.2016 and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

Suresh Chander and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-20408 of 2016

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:22.11.2016

¶5

Suresh Chander and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶14

Ms. Mansi Bansal, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Bhatnagar, Advocate for the 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.156 dated 8.5.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantBhola Nath on the allegations that the accused-petitioners have cheated him.

¶18

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 2016.11.23 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-20408 of 2016

¶20

[2]

¶21

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, Barnala has sent his report dated 8.11.2016 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 Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for 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.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent 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 amicably settled and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶26

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.11.23 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Misc. No.M-20408 of 2016

¶28

[3]

¶29

in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.156 dated 8.5.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶30

November 22, 2016.

¶31

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶32

hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶33

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.11.23 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Suresh Chander and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chander and Others v. State of Punjab 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

Manjit Singh @ Pahalwan Vs State of Haryana

Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Ajit Singh @ Jeet Vs State of Punjab

Charanjit Kaur Vs Sanjay Sharma

Charanjit Kaur Vs Sanjay Sharma

Sheela Vs Pawan Kumar & Ors.