The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered under Section 420 IPC and subsequent proceedings allowing for a compromise to restore peace and harmony between the parties.
Quashed FIR No.149 dated 16.5.2011 registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
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-15907 of 2016
.....
Date of decision:21.12.2017
Kulwant Kaur and another
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr. Maneesh Bajaj, Advocate 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.149 dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/affidavit (Annexure-P.2).
The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantManpreet Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioners have 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 2017.12.22 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-15907 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, Amritsar has sent report dated 30.10.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Mr. K.S. Aulakh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab 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.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel 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 petition is allowed and FIR No.149 dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure-P.1)
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.22 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-15907 of 2016
[3]
registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar City and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
December 21, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.22 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC can be quashed in view of a genuine compromise between the parties.
Whether the continuance of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility given the settled nature of the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶23
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulwant Kaur
State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
