CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
CRM No. M 21742 of 2009
Date of decision: 17.12.2009
Mandeep Singh ........ petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. K S Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent- State
Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 2
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in
the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR
No. 112 dated 01.09.2004 under Section 406 IPC at Police Station Garh
Shankar, District Hoshiarpur on the basis of the compromise having been
arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record
as Annexure P-2. A separate statements of the complainant as well as of the
petitioner have also been recorded in the Court to the same effect. The
CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 2
petitioner and respondent No. 2 have also filed their respective affidavits
stating that the FIR and proceedings arising out of the matter pursuance of
the statement of respondent No. 2 be quashed.
It would be relevant to note the facts of the present case.
Petitioner – Mandeep Singh had got registered FIR No. 112 dated 01.09.2004
under Section 406 IPC at Police Station Garh Shankar, District Hoshiarpur
against respondent No. 2- Surjit Kaur. As per the allegation in the FIR, Surjit
Kaur, who is owner of Maruti Car 1997 Model baring registration No. PB
10X 5833 and she disclosed her desire to sell the aforesaid Car and sold the
same for Rs.70,000/-, which was paid. But no document was got executed
from her due to faith. After some days, she disclosed her desire to purchase
en enfield motor cycle and asked complainant-Mandeep Singh for help and
accordingly paid Rs.65,000/-. After paying the amount, she took the motor
cycle, but subsequently returned the same to Mandeep Singh. Thereafter, she
obtained his signatures on some blank papers by misleading him and the said
documents signed by him were used to show her ownership of the said
vehicle. However, later on, during investigation a statement was made by
Surjit Kaur-respondent No. 2 and on the basis of her statement, it was found
that rather it was Mandeep Singh-author of the FIR, who had taken motor
cycle and car as well as Rs.2,00,000/- from Surjit Kaur. Accordingly,
Challan was filed against the present petitioner and Surjit Kaur was found
innocent.
The aforesaid matter has since been compromised between the
parties. Separate affidavits of both the parties have also been filed in Court
today. In his affidavit, Mandeep Singh stated that he has no objection if the
CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 3
aforesaid FIR is quashed. Similarly, in her affidavit Surjit Kaur stated that
she has no if the proceedings arising in the matter in pursuance of her
statement qua the petitioner are quashed.
The Apex Court in the case of ‘Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Punjab’ reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-
“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps
advisable that in disputes where the question involved
is of a purely personal nature, the Court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in
criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with
no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is
a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as
they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can
be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful
litigation. This is a common sense approach to the
matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the
technicalities of the law.”
The present is a case which is purely personal in nature and the
compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise
has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. In view of the
compromise, chances of conviction either of the petitioner or the complainant
are nil. It would be a futile exercise to allow the proceedings to continue.
Keeping in mind the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), affidavits of both the
parties as also the facts of the present case, the compromise deserves to be
CRM No. M 21742 of 2009 4
accepted. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 112
dated 01.09.2004 under Section 406 IPC at Police Station Garh Shankar,
District Hoshiarpur as well as further proceedings arising out of the same and
the challan filed against the present petitioner in pursuance to the statement
of Surjit Kaur for promoting peace and harmony.
Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising
out of the same qua the petitioner in pursuance to the statement recorded by
Surjit Kaur are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge
December 17, 2009
mohan