Lovely Mehta Alias Sunny Mehta v. State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others

2023:PHHC:151833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 29, 2023 LOVELY MEHTA ALIAS SUNNY MEHTA .......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Addl. P.P. U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.79 dated 13.05.2022 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC Indian Penal Code at Police Station South, Sector 34, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 23.08.2023.

2.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainants namely, Ajay Mittal and Harish Kumar on the allegations that the accused-petitioner was given four vehicles on rent which he did not return nor any rent was paid thereon. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.

-23.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report dated 18.11.2023 has been received from JMIC, Chandigarh stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

4.

Learned Addl. P.P. U.T., Chandigarh on instructions from SI Virender Singh and learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakunta Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63, speaking through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, has held as under:-

-3- "4. ....The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion....."

7.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 and Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No.79 dated 13.05.2022 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC Indian Penal Code at Police Station South, Sector 34, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua petitioner.

29.11.2023 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No