Allowed

Vicky Jain v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2017CRM-M/25636/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed an FIR registered for cheating offences. The court held that with a genuine compromise and the consent of parties, continuation of prosecution was an exercise in futility.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.933 dated 20.10.2010 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

Vicky Jain Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-25636 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:18.12.2017

Vicky Jain

.....Petitioner

State of Haryana and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr. G.S. Gopera, 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.933 dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise memorandum of settlement (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantPoshak Agrivet Pvt. Ltd. on the allegations that the accused-petitioner has cheated it. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.19 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Cr. Misc. No.M-25636 of 2017

¶19

[2]

¶20

been amicably settled and compromise memorandum of settlement has been entered into 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal has sent report dated 12.12.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

¶21

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, 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.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.19 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

Cr. Misc. No.M-25636 of 2017

¶27

[3]

¶28

in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No.933 dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶29

December 18, 2017.

¶30

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶31

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

¶32

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.12.19 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Vicky Jain v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky Jain v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Arun Kumar Alias Shanky Vs State of Punjab

Ram Karan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sandeep Mehta Vs Sham Sunder

Sumita Singh Vs State of Haryana through Home Secretary, Haryana

Sant Ram Vs Satpal