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’