Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1140346
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-12-2014
AppellantHarjinder Singh
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. no.m-39014 of2013date of decision : 12th may2014harjinder singh …. petitioner versus state of punjab & another …. respondents coram : hon’ble mr.justice surinder gupta **** present : mr.achin gupta, advocate for the petitioner. mr.varun sharma, assistant advocate general, punjab. mr.vinay k. gupta, advocate, for respondent no.2. **** surinder gupta, j. (oral) the petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, 'cr.p.c.') seeking quashing of the fir no.70 dated 29.03.2009 (annexure p-1) registered for offence under sections 406 and 420 ipc police station city kotakpura, district faridkot, on the basis of the compromise (annexure p-2).as per the allegation in the fir, the complainant entered into a deal with the petitioner for going abroad i.e.canada and paid `25,00,000/- but the petitioner neither send him to canada nor returned the money. upon notice, mr.varun sharma, assistant advocate general, punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1-state and mr.crl. misc. no.m-39014 of2013-2- vinay k. gupta, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2-complainant. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. the parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. the trial court has sent its report dated 17.01.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or coercion. learned counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant has submitted that in view of the compromise (annexure p-2).the private respondent (complainant) has no objection if the impugned fir (annexure p-2) is quashed. learned state counsel has also not disputed the settlement of the dispute of the parties through compromise and has no objection in case the same is accepted. it has been submitted that the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and panchayat and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony. keeping all the above facts in view, i am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned fir should be quashed. keeping the case pending will not serve any purpose. the quashing of the fir will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable and peaceful atmosphere which is not only good for the parties to this petition but also to their families and ultimately the society at large. the offence in this case is crl. misc. no.m-39014 of2013-3- not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise. as such, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned fir (annexure p-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed qua the petitioner-harjinder singh only. 12th may, 2014 (surinder gupta) gupta) ‘raj’ judge raj kumar 2014.05.15 17:25 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.

MISC.

No.M-39014 OF2013DATE OF DECISION : 12th MAY2014Harjinder Singh ….

Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ….

Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA **** Present : Mr.Achin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr.Vinay K.

Gupta, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

**** SURINDER GUPTA, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.70 dated 29.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC Police Station City Kotakpura, District Faridkot, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).As per the allegation in the FIR, the complainant entered into a deal with the petitioner for going abroad i.e.Canada and paid `25,00,000/- but the petitioner neither send him to Canada nor returned the money.

Upon notice, Mr.Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr.CRL.

MISC.

NO.M-39014 OF2013-2- Vinay K.

Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded.

The trial court has sent its report dated 17.01.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or coercion.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has submitted that in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2).the private respondent (complainant) has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P-2) is quashed.

Learned State counsel has also not disputed the settlement of the dispute of the parties through compromise and has no objection in case the same is accepted.

It has been submitted that the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and panchayat and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed.

Keeping the case pending will not serve any purpose.

The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable and peaceful atmosphere which is not only good for the parties to this petition but also to their families and ultimately the society at large.

The offence in this case is CRL.

MISC.

NO.M-39014 OF2013-3- not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.

As such, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed qua the petitioner-Harjinder Singh only.

12th May, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA) GUPTA) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2014.05.15 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh