Allowed

Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2018CRM-M/14866/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Court held that since the dispute was amicably settled by the parties through a genuine compromise without coercion, continuing criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. Relying on the legal position laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court concluded that no party is a loser in a compromise case; thus, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.183 dated 1.9.2016 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.

Prem Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-14866 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:13.7.2018

Prem Kumar

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶14

None for the complainant-respondents.

¶15

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.183 dated 1.9.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainantKesar Singh on the allegations that the accused-petitioner has cheated the complainant and other farmers of the area, who used to sell their crop to him. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been

¶18

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.19 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-14866 of 2017

¶20

[2]

¶21

amicably settled and compromise 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala has sent report dated 7.6.2018 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 Senior Deputy 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.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel 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 in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this

¶26

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.19 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Misc. No.M-14866 of 2017

¶28

[3]

¶29

petition is allowed and FIR No.183 dated 1.9.2016 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

¶30

July 13, 2018.

¶31

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶32

hsp

¶33

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

¶34

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.19 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ramesh Khurana Vs Lal Singh and Anr.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Anjali Bhawra

Balbir Chand Vs State of Punjab

Hari Chand Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amarjit Singh @ Shammi Vs State of Haryana