Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.       Dated            Police Sta-on                   Sec-ons
144           22.07.2015       Goraya, Jalandhar      City, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC
                               District Jalandhar

      The pe     oner, arraigned as accused in the above cap oned FIR, has come up before

this Court under Sec on 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and all consequen al proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.

2. During the pendency of the pe on, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the ma6er, and its copy is annexed with this pe on as Annexure P-2.

3. A:er that, the pe oner came up before this Court to quash the FIR, and in the quashing pe on, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.

4. On 10.02.2020, the aggrieved person Santokh Singh (R-2) appeared before the JMIC, Phillaur and stated that there would be no objec on if the court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 13.02.2020, the par es consented to the quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings without any threat.

12. In Gold Quest Interna onal Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 15 SCC 235, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [3]. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an Interna onal Numisma c Company which has opera ons in over sixty countries. It 6 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:076301 CRM-M No.3180 of 2020 2023:PHHC:076301 is pleaded that it conducts its business with necessary licence. The mul level marke ng through direct selling of products is being adopted by the Company in the interest of the consumers by elimina ng the middleman and rewarding the consumer by reducing the prices. The appellant-company has over sixteen thousand members/consumers in and around the city of Chennai alone. A complaint was made in the year 2003 by Respondent No. 7 against the appellant-company alleging non-compliance of issuance of numisma c gold coin on receipt of L 16,800/- from wife of Respondent No. 7 as per the promise made by the appellant- company. Some other customers also had complaints on the basis of which Respondent No. 4 registered a case under Sec on 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec ons 4, 5 & 6 of the Prise Chits and Money Circula on (Banning) Act, 1978. The appellant-company filed a writ pe on being W.P.No. 26784 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras praying therein that the FIR registered against it be quashed. Since all the claimants including the complainant se6led the dispute with the appellant-company and entered into an agreement, learned Single Judge of the High Court by its order dated 19th April, 2005 quashed the FIR, and disposed of the aforesaid writ pe on. However, the State-respondents challenged the said order dated 19th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the FIR No. 307 of 2003 was quashed, before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal being W.A.No. 1178 of 2005 filed by the State-respondents and directed Respondent No. 4 to inves gate the crime. Hence, this appeal. [8]. In view of the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, we are of the view in the disputes which are substan ally matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the par es have entered into se6lement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of convic on, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Sec on 482 Cr.P.C. read with Ar cle 226 of the Cons tu on. However, the same would not apply where the nature of offence is very serious like rape, murder, robbery, dacoity, cases under Preven on of Corrup on Act, cases under Narco c Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and other similar kind of offences in which punishment of life imprisonment or death can be awarded. A:er considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law in quashing the FIR a:er not only the complainant and the appellant se6led their money dispute but also the other alleged sufferers entered into an agreement with the appellant, and as such, they too se6led their claims.

16. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Jus ce arises propi ously when par es, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

17. In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of par es, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objec ves point towards its acceptance.

18. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Associa on v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Pe on (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that ma6er was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Pe ons against the order of the High Court rejec ng their pe on for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ pe on has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automa cally stands vi ated."