Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Gandhi vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 May, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-2271 of 2009
Date of Decision:4.5.2012
Mohinder Gandhi .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.142 dated 28.6.2005 registered under Sections 420,465,471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2- Complainant. As per the said affidavit, a compromise was effected between the parties and the petitioner was required to pay ` 2.50 lacs to respondent No.2-complainant in pursuance to the compromise. However, the petitioner had paid only ` 1 lac and balance amount of ` 1.5 lacs has still not been paid. As per the said affidavit, the petitioner had prepared an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 showing the full payment as per the compromise. The said affidavit has been prepared by the petitioner on blank papers by respondent No.2-complainant. It is further submitted that the said compromise has not matured, hence, the present petition on the basis of compromise be dismissed.
While praying for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an CRM M-2271 of 2009 -2- affidavit (Annexure P-1) stood submitted by respondent No.2- complainant in which it was stated that the matter has been compromised and he had no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and the petitioner is acquitted or discharged from the said case. A counsel had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 on the first instance. Subsequently, counsel was changed and the present affidavit has been filed denying the compromise.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Lal and others v. State of Haryana and another 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 823 to state that the respondent cannot be allowed to back out from the compromise.
Heard.
It is not disputed that present petition for quashing of FIR was filed only on the basis of compromise. As per the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 before this Court, the said compromise has not matured as the petitioner has not paid the balance amount. The said averments have not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, the argument of the petitioner that at the first instance, Ms. Poonam Tara, learned counsel had put in appearance and subsequently respondent No.2 changed his counsel and the present affidavit dated 10/24.9.2009 through the present counsel has been filed.
As such, respondent No.2 having admitted the compromise, cannot be allowed to change his stand as the earlier counsel, who had put in appearance, had only accepted the notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Neither the counsel confirmed that the matter has been compromised nor filed any affidavit stating so. Thus, the appearance of learned counsel for respondent No.2 on 27.1.2009, in itself, is not sufficient to show that respondent No.2- complainant had accepted the compromise at the first instance.
Secondly, as per the affidavit dated 10/24.9.2009 filed by respondent No.2-complainant, the earlier affidavit (Annexure P-1) has been prepared on the blank papers signed by respondent No.2 and he has not received the full amount. Thus, it is a disputed CRM M-2271 of 2009 -3- question as to whether the said affidavit has been given by him out of his own free will or the same was prepared on the blank papers as stated by him in the subsequent affidavit dated 10.9.2009 filed by respondent No.2. Thus, the question as to whether the compromise is genuine or not cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him in the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, the present petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of the said compromise is dismissed.
4.5.2012 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE