High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/36777/2014dismissed

Santokh Singh & ANR v. State Of Punjab & ANR

2016-05-17Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

CRM M-36777 of 2014 CRM M-9789 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.05.2016 (i) CRM M-36777 of 2014 Santokh Singh & anr.

....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab & anr.

....Respondents (ii) CRM M-9789 of 2015 Santokh Singh & anr.

....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab & anr.

....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. (in CRM M-36777 of 2014) Ms. Shikha Khullar, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRM M-9789 of 2015) Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J.

This order will dispose of aforesaid two petitions. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR(s) on the basis of compromise. FIR was lodged on the complaint of Ranjit Singh, father-in-law of respondent no. 2. He alleged that accused promised that he was aware of land which would be available at quite reasonable price and complainant would earn handsome profit. On this allurement, complainant borrowed money from his relatives and parted with `2 crores & 25 lacs. As accused did not AJAY KUMAR 2016.05.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-36777 of 2014 CRM M-9789 of 2015 live up to the promise, he asked him to refund the amount. Accused issued various cheques of huge amounts. Same bounced on presentation. In the year 2012, complainant died his natural death. Later, accused started threatening the husband of respondent no. 2. As a result, he committed suicide and another FIR No. 6 dated 07.01.2014 was registered against the accused under section 306 IPC at police station Jodhan, District Ludhiana on complaint of wife of the deceased. In my considered view, no case for quashing of both the FIRs is made out. Admittedly, investigation of both the cases is still pending. In view of nature of allegations, proceedings need to be taken to their logical end.

Compromise effected by complainant on behalf of a dead person can be of no avail (see CRM M-22257 of 2014 titled as Kulvir Singh vs. State of Punjab). Both petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. Report received in CRM M-36777 of 2014 pursuant to order dated 23.01.2015 is of no consequence. Investigating agency would proceed as per law. May 17, 2016 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2016.05.