Jagdish Chanana and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5194/2006]
[From the interim Order dated 24.7.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appln. No. 25431/2006 in Crl. M. No. 20115-M/2005]
[Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5194/2006]
[From the interim Order dated 24.7.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appln. No. 25431/2006 in Crl. M. No. 20115-M/2005]
Petitioner: Jagdish Chanana and Ors.
Respondent: State of Haryana and Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5194/2006]
[From the interim Order dated 24.7.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appln. No. 25431/2006 in Crl. M. No. 20115-M/2005]
[Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5194/2006]
[From the interim Order dated 24.7.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appln. No. 25431/2006 in Crl. M. No. 20115-M/2005]
Judges: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 03, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Rajeev Gaur ‘Naseem’, Mr. T.V. George and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates for the Respondents.
Mr. Rajeev Gaur ‘Naseem’, Mr. T.V. George and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482 – Quashing – Offences of cheating and forgery etc. – During pendency of SLP, compromise deed filed – Disputes purely personal and settled – No public policy involved. Held that in view of the said facts, FIR in question quashed. (Para 2)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482 – Quashing – Offences of cheating and forgery etc. – During pendency of SLP, compromise deed filed – Disputes purely personal and settled – No public policy involved. Held that in view of the said facts, FIR in question quashed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered under Sections 419,420,465,468,469,471,472,474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court, Crl.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered under Sections 419,420,465,468,469,471,472,474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court, Crl.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings.
