Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Kumar Alias Sonu And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 May, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc.No. 10097 of 2010 (O&M) [1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc.No. 10097 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : May 10, 2011
Kuldeep Kumar alias Sonu and others .......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. J.P.Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
....
RITU BAHRI, J.
The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 406 dated 26.6.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal on the basis of compromise.
A complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for registration of an FIR. A truck bearing Registration No. HR-55B-0612 was being run by accused No.2 with the Guru Nanak Truck Operator Union Khanori (Punjab). He had purchased this truck from the Crl. Misc.No. 10097 of 2010 (O&M) [2 ] original owner i.e. accused No.1. Accused No.3 is doing the business of sale and purchase of vehicles and belongs to the village of accused No.2. Complainant and his partner Kulwant Singh purchased the truck from accused No.3. The sale of the truck was made without disclosing that this truck had met with an accident and the original R.C. was in the case file. They supplied one copy of the R.C. transferred in the name of the complainant. The truck was insured with the Insurance Company and a loan was taken from Shri Ram Transport Finance Company. On 3.7.2008 this truck met with an accident and Rapat No. 139 was lodged. The Insurance Company refused to pay the claim on the ground that the R.C. of the truck was duplicate. On contacting accused Nos. 2 and 3 and subsequently they came to know that the truck had met with an accident which was owned and possessed by accused No.2. An FIR No. 549 dated 8.12.2005 under Sections 279/338 IPC was lodged at Police Station Kaithal. The original R.C. of the truck was in the case file. When the truck was released on supardari the sale was made to the complainant. In the above background, the FIR was registered alleging that the accused had committed an act of fraud and deceived and cheated the complainant. A compromise has been effected between the petitioners and the complainant on the intervention of the respectables of the society. The complainant has furnished an affidavit Crl. Misc.No. 10097 of 2010 (O&M) [3 ] dated 13.3.2010 (Annexure P1) that he is not interested in pursuing the case any more.
In compliance of the order dated 17.1.2011 a report of the trial court has been received on 11.2.2011 in which it has been stated that both the parties have made a statement voluntarily before the Court that a compromise has been effected. The compromise is held to be genuine.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the State, has argued that the said truck was originally owned by Ashu Kumar son of Ashok Kumar. This truck was purchased by petitioner No.2. The entire payment was not made, therefore, the truck was not transferred by Ashu Kumar in the name of petitioner No.2. It is also stated that the said truck had met with an accident and was subsequently released on supardari by Ashu Kumar being owner and the Registration Certificate was tagged with the case file. Petitioner No.1 purchased a stamp paper in the name of Ashu Kumar by forging his signatures that his Registration Certificate has been lost. After getting the affidavit attested, he submitted the forged affidavit to the police and got recorded the DDR in this regard. A duplicate R.C. was got issued from the Secretary R.T.A. Kaithal. Thereafter, the sale was made to the complainant-respondent No.2 by petitioner No.2. In this manner the truck was transferred in the name of respondent No.2. Mr. Sharma has argued that the Crl. Misc.No. 10097 of 2010 (O&M) [4 ] petitioners have cheated the Secretary, R.T.A. Kaithal. The signatures have been sent for comparison to FSL, Madhuban. After completion of the investigation challan will be filed in the Court. The present FIR should not be quashed as the petitioners are guilty of cheating by forging documents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After going through the entire facts this Court is of the view that the complainant has now compromised the issue and does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings. He had purchased the truck from the petitioners without disclosing that the truck was involved in an accident. They were given a duplicate R.C. for the truck. As far as the petitioners and the complainant are concerned, they have compromised the matter and it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the criminal proceedings which the complainant had decided not to pursue. The complainant had purchased the truck with a duplicate R.C. Since the matter has now been amicably settled in view of the stand taken by the State, the complainant should not be compelled to pursue the criminal proceedings. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 1052 and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 429, FIR No. 406 dated 26.6.2009 under Crl. Misc.No. 10097 of 2010 (O&M) [5 ] Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City, Kaithal is quashed.
However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate any criminal proceedings against the petitioners when the investigation is completed, after receiving the FSL report from Madhuban. Quashing of the FIR in the present case will not be a bar for initiating proceedings by the respondents.
Accordingly petition is disposed of.
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 10.5.2011 rupi