High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR under Section 420 IPC upon a report from the Magistrate stating the compromise was genuine, observing that continued prosecution would be futile after amicable settlement.
FIR No.166 dated 30.9.2016 registered for offence under Section 420 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are hereby 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-2835 of 2017
.....
Date of decision:22.2.2017
Kuldip Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
None for the complainant-respondents No.2 and 3.
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.166 dated 30.9.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar Rural and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).
The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantAnita Chopra on the allegations that the accused-petitioner has cheated her and respondent No.3. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably settled and compromise has been entered into
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.02.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-2835 of 2017
[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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar has sent his report dated 13.2.2017 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, 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 petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab 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 2017.02.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-2835 of 2017
[3]
petition is allowed and FIR No.166 dated 30.9.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar Rural and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
February 22, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.02.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under Section 420 IPC can be quashed given the existence of a genuine compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶25
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kuldip Singh
State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
