Rajinder Paul Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1159201
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-07-2014
AppellantRajinder Paul Singh
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh .....criminal misc. no.m-2591 of 2014 ....date of decision:7.7.2014 rajinder paul singh .....petitioner v. state of punjab and another .....respondents ...coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh ....present: mr.madan gupta and mr.aayush gupta, advocates for the petitioner. mr.k.s.aulakh, assistant advocate general, punjab for the respondent-state. mr.rajeshwar singh thakur, 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.109 dated 8.8.2013 (annexure-p.1) registered for the offences under sections 420 and 120-b ipc at police station sahnewal, district ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise. the fir has been registered on the statement of complainant- manjit kaur on the allegations that the petitioner along with property dealer raman kumar had cheated her on the pretext of selling a plot to the parmar harpal singh 2014.08.02 16:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-2591 of 2014 [2].complainant after taking `19.50 lacs but he had not executed the registry of the same. they further sold that plot to smt. deepak garg wife of inder garg. neither the registry of the above plot was executed in favour of the complainant nor the accused has returned the money. in this manner, a fraud has been played with the complainant as they had given the coloured photo copy of the original agreement to sell. respondent-state as well as the complainant have filed separate written statements and contested the petition. however, the complainant-respondent filed criminal misc. no.11637 of 2014 praying that she wants to place on record compromise (annexure-r.2/1).which was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2014 passed by this court. a perusal of the affidavit filed by the complainant shows that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner. on 20.5.2014, the parties were present before this court in person with their respective counsel. learned counsel for the parties had stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties. keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned concerned court/magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. after doing the needful, learned judicial magistrate ist class, ludhiana has sent his report dated 10.6.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. complainant manjit kaur has stated that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused parmar harpal singh 2014.08.02 16:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-2591 of 2014 [3].rajinder paul singh with the intervention of respectables the compromise has been duly executed with the accused and she has also made a statement before the hon'ble high court on 20.5.2014 with regard to the said compromise with the accused. manjit kaur has compromised the said matter without any influence, coercion or any kind of pressure at her own sweet will for maintaining the harmony and she has no objection if the present fir is quashed. learned assistant 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 gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned assistant advocate general, punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent no.2. 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. the hon'ble supreme court in gian singh v. state of punjab parmar harpal singh 2014.08.02 16:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr. misc. no.m-2591 of 2014 [4].and another, 2012 (4) rcr (cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 cr.p.c.can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc.or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable. therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the law laid down in gian singh v. state of punjab and another (supra).this petition is allowed and fir no.109 dated 8.8.2013 (annexure-p.1) registered for the offences under sections 420 and 120-b ipc at police station sahnewal, district ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. july 7, 2014. (inderjit singh) judge *hsp* parmar harpal singh 2014.08.02 16:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Misc.

No.M-2591 of 2014 ....Date of decision:7.7.2014 Rajinder Paul Singh .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Madan Gupta and Mr.Aayush Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, 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.109 dated 8.8.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant- Manjit Kaur on the allegations that the petitioner along with property dealer Raman Kumar had cheated her on the pretext of selling a plot to the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.08.02 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-2591 of 2014 [2].complainant after taking `19.50 Lacs but he had not executed the registry of the same.

They further sold that plot to Smt.

Deepak Garg wife of Inder Garg.

Neither the registry of the above plot was executed in favour of the complainant nor the accused has returned the money.

In this manner, a fraud has been played with the complainant as they had given the coloured photo copy of the original agreement to sell.

Respondent-State as well as the complainant have filed separate written statements and contested the petition.

However, the complainant-respondent filed Criminal Misc.

No.11637 of 2014 praying that she wants to place on record compromise (Annexure-R.2/1).which was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2014 passed by this Court.

A perusal of the affidavit filed by the complainant shows that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner.

On 20.5.2014, the parties were present before this Court in person with their respective counsel.

Learned counsel for the parties had stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned concerned Court/Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise.

After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has sent his report dated 10.6.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Complainant Manjit Kaur has stated that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.08.02 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-2591 of 2014 [3].Rajinder Paul Singh with the intervention of respectables the compromise has been duly executed with the accused and she has also made a statement before the Hon'ble High Court on 20.5.2014 with regard to the said compromise with the accused.

Manjit Kaur has compromised the said matter without any influence, coercion or any kind of pressure at her own sweet will for maintaining the harmony and she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

Learned Assistant 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 gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2.

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.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.08.02 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.

Misc.

No.M-2591 of 2014 [4].and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc.or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable.

Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the law laid down in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another (supra).this petition is allowed and FIR No.109 dated 8.8.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

July 7, 2014.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.08.02 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh