The single judge quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings for cheating and forgery offences after a genuine settlement was reached between the parties, finding further prosecution futile.
The FIR registered under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
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-32713 of 2015
.....
Date of decision:11.2.2016
Deepak and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Himmat Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
None for complainant-respondent No.2.
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.640 dated 18.9.2014 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).
The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantRam Saran on the allegations that the accused-petitioners by hatching conspiracy have cheated him. Now with intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably settled and compromise has been entered into
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.23 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-32713 of 2015
[2]
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad has sent his report dated 1.2.2015 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 Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits 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 petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana 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 2016.02.23 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-32713 of 2015
[3]
petition is allowed and FIR No.640 dated 18.9.2014 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
February 11, 2016.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge
hsp
HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.02.23 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered for offences under sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC should be quashed in view of the compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶25
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak and others
State of Haryana and another
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
