Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Inderjit Singh Grewal vs Anil Kumar on 21 April, 2014

Author: Surinder Gupta

Bench: Surinder Gupta

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


           Crl. Misc. No. M-5690 of 2014
           Date of decision: April 21, 2014

           Inderjit Singh Grewal
                                                                               .. Petitioner

                                            Vs.
           Anil Kumar
                                                                               .. Respondent

           Coram:               Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta

           Present:             Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                Mr. Anil Kumar, Respondent in person.

           Surinder Gupta, J

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the criminal complaint No.12197 dated 14.10.2006 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Annexure P/1) and the summoning order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the trial court, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P/3) As per the complaint, the petitioner had produced the rent receipts showing the rent to be `750/- per month after forging the signatures of the complainant on the same.

Upon notice, the respondent appeared in person.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. The trial court has sent its report dated 11.3.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence.

The respondent No.1 appeared in person, who has been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and has submitted that in view of the compromise (Annexure P/3), the matter has been settled and he does not want to proceed against the petitioner.

The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned FIR is that the offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC are not compoundable. In case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offence is not compoundable.

In the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned complaint should be quashed. Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of the complaint will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large. The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.

In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P/2) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.

           April 11, 2014                                           (Surinder Gupta)
           deepak                                                         Judge




Kumar Deepak
2014.04.28 10:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document