Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sital Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
300 CRM-M-4081-2023
Date of decision: 15.01.2025
SITAL SINGH AND ANOTHER
....Petitioners
V/s
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Varun Katyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kanhyia Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.0114 dated 02.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 24 of the Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Phase-II Mohali, District SAS Nagar, and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) arrived at, between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the FIR on the basis that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the FIR in question qua the petitioners therein.
3. A perusal of the FIR shows that complainant-Bishan Das Sharma has lodged FIR against the petitioners and many other persons for committing fraud and causing financial loss to them on the pretext of sending them abroad. FIR has been lodged against many persons including 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 23:30:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007243 CRM-M-4081-2023 -2- the petitioners but compromise has been effected between only petitioners and complainant-Bishan Das Sharma which is therefore, partial.
4. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Das versus State of Haryana and another passed in CRM-M No. 48043 of 2023, dated 12.11.2024, has categorically laid down that an FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a partial compromise. The relevant extracts/paras are reproduced hereunder:-
"15. An incisive reading of the facts set-forth thereins, whereins, all the principles (supra) become settled, but do not suggest that the said principles became erected, even when a partial compromise became arrived at amongst the concerned, and/or when no composite compromise became arrived at amongst all concerned, nor also but obviously the plenitude of jurisdiction preserved in the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C., became exposited thereins, to be available to become well recoursed, even when the concerned make only a piecemeal compromise, inasmuch as, to the extent that some of the offenders are omitted to be mentioned in the settlement as becomes drawn, and/or even when some of the aggrieved from the offending act of the offender(s) are not included in the said made settlement.
16. In consequence, if the learned Single Benches of this Court after receiving a piecemeal settlement, did proceed to record a piecemeal order of composition of offence(s), besides made orders for the quashing of the verdicts of conviction drawn against the concerned, by the learned trial Judge concerned, whereagainst thus subjudice appeal(s) become instituted before the learned Appellate Court concerned, but basing them on the judgments (supra), are so made, thus without a careful and insightful reading(s) being made, both to the facts set-forth in the verdicts (supra), and, of the guidelines (supra) erected thereons.
17. Consequently, the views taken by the learned Single Benches of this Court, based upon the judgments (supra) whereby they proceeded to receive piecemeal settlements drawn amongst the concerned, and, also proceeded to record a piecemeal order of 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 23:30:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007243 CRM-M-4081-2023 -3- composition, are prima facie made outside the contours of the guidelines spelt in the verdicts (supra). In consequence, the view(s) taken in the said verdicts, thus is per incuriam, the expostulations of law (supra), therebys the said adopted view(s), thus to the considered mind of this Court, but require(s) to be hereafter not become adopted by the learned Single Benches of this Court."
4. In view of the above, the present petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of partial compromise is dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
January 15, 2025 JUDGE
poonam
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 23:30:45 :::