Kujnish Vashisht vs Navneet Nayar & Another on 7 May, 2009

Criminal Misc. No. M-411 of 2009                      1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH

                          Criminal Misc. No. M-411 of 2009
                          Date of decision: May 07, 2009


Kujnish Vashisht                        -Petitioner

             Versus

Navneet Nayar & another                 -Respondents

Coram        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:     Mr. RK Sharma, Advocate, for
             the petitioner.

             Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for
             respondent No.1.
             Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab, for
             respondent No.2.

Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.212 dated 26-6-2001 under Sections

406,408,380 IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 5 Ludhiana

(Annexure P-1 ) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the

basis of compromise (Annexure P-2 ) arrived at between the parties.

On March 5, 2009, following order was passed in this case:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
are two Directors, namely, Navneet Nayar son of Shri K.K.Nayar and
Neeraj Malhotra son of Shri D.K.Malhotra, of the Company M/s
Rodney Cooks Overseas ( India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. He further
submits that in support of the compromise, affidavit of Navneet
Nayar is already on record as Annexure P-2. However, learned
counsel submits that affidavit of the other Director i.e. Neeraj
Malhotra shall also be placed on record within ten days.

Learned counsel for the State, in the meanwhile, may
Criminal Misc. No. M-411 of 2009 2

verify whether this compromise is on behalf of the company and
thus, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed or not.”

Affidavit dated 9-3-2009 of Neeraj Malhotra has been filed,

according to which there are two Directors in the Company namely

Navneet Nayar and Neeraj Malhotra. It has been stated in the affidavit that

the company does not wish to proceed further with the FIR got registered by

it. It has been further stated that due to financial problems, an application

has been moved before the Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar to strike out

the name of the Company from the register and to close down the same.

Reply has also been filed on behalf of the State by way of

affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

Para 2 thereof reads thus:

“—it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to passing
of the order by this Hon’ble Court, the police official met with one of
the Directors of the complainant company, who admitted factum of
the compromise. True copy of the same is annexed herewith as
Annexure R-1 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. The
contents of preliminary submissions are reiterated.”

Learned State counsel submits that since the dispute between

the parties is of a private nature, the State would not stand in the way of

quashing the FIR in case there is a compromise.

In view of the fact that affidavits of both the Directors of the

complainant company have been placed on record, specifically stating

therein that they do not want to pursue the matter, the instant FIR deserves

to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in

Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.)

1052.

Criminal Misc. No. M-411 of 2009 3

The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the

matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose shall

be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings, which would be a

futile exercise.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and

the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
May 07, 2009.

‘ask’