Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudhir Kale And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 February, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM-M-10472-2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10472-2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 18, 2014
Sudhir Kale and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Karambir Singh Nalwa, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sudhir Kale, Harbinder Singh Sehra and Vijay Kumar Babbar, for quashing of FIR No. 328, dated 29.7.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 427, IPC, registered at Police Station, City, Jagadhari, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is apposite to mention herein that initially the Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.20 10:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-10472-2011 (O&M) 2 petition was filed for quashing of the FIR and other proceedings emanating therefrom, but during the pendency of this petition, the affected parties, i.e. the petitioners and respondent No. 2- complainant, had sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise.
3. Vide order dated 13.1.2014, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2-complainant were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise and the said Court was also directed to submit a detailed report in that regard before the date fixed by this Court.
3. In compliance of the above, all the three petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant did appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, and got recorded their joint statement with regard to the compromise. The copy of the said joint statement as well as the report, have been received.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the FIR was registered against four persons including three petitioners, however, the fourth person is not traceable for the last about 5-6 years, therefore, the present petition has been filed on behalf of three petitioners only. He further contends that the main offences punishable under Sections 420 and 427, IPC, Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.20 10:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-10472-2011 (O&M) 3 are compoundable, however, the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC, is not compoundable, therefore, the petitioners had prayed this Court for quashing of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings on the basis of compromise. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 13.1.2014, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2- complainant did appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their joint statement with regard to the compromise. He further submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of business dispute, which has now been sorted out and, as such, the pendency of the proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak.
5. Learned counsel for the State has also gone through the copy of the joint statement suffered by the private parties and the report received from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed on the basis of the compromise.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant also admits that the present criminal litigation had arisen out of business dispute and now the amount due towards respondent No. 2-complainant has been paid by the petitioners and she has Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.20 10:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-10472-2011 (O&M) 4 no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed. He further concedes that respondent No. 2-complainant did appear before the learned Court below and suffered her statement with regard to the compromise.
7. Heard.
8. The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a business dispute. Both the private parties have resolved their disputes and effected a compromise. Their joint statement has already been recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri. The report received from the said Court reveals that the compromise so effected between the private parties was voluntary one and without any pressure or coercion. The learned counsel representing the respective parties have also admitted the factum of the compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
9. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak.
10. As a sequel to the above discussion and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.20 10:28 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-10472-2011 (O&M) 5 Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543, and and that of a 5-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, this petition is accepted and FIR No. 328, dated 29.7.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 427, IPC, registered at Police Station, City, Jagadhari, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
February 18, 2014 JUDGE
Pkapoor
Kapoor Prashant
2014.02.20 10:28
I attest to the accuracy
of this order