RAJBIR SINGH SUNAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short called the Code) for quashing First Information Report No. 43 dated 4-4-1995, registered at police Station North, Chandigarh, for the offences under Sections 365, 384, 342, 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in the statement of Shri Het Ram, respondent No. 2 herein.

(2.) According to the averments made in the FIR (Annexure P-1) there were certain monetary dealings between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Some time ago the accounts were gone into and a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was found to be due from respondent No. 2 to petitioner No. 1. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- is alleged to have been paid and for the balance amount petitioner No. 1 got certain blank cheques signed from respondent No. 2 with the promise that the same would be returned when the amount would be cleared. On 28-3-1995 respondent No. 2 got a cheque for Rs. 3,57,000/- from the Chandigarh Housing Board and deposited the same in his account in Andhra Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Petitioner No. 1 came to know about it and he forcibly took respondent No. 2 in his car to the premises of Decent Property Dealer, Sector 22, Chandigarh, and after taking one Goggi, took him to his own residence in House No. 129. Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. After giving beatings and extending a threat, respondent No. 2 was made to issue two cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and confined respondent No. 2 in his own house. Thereafter petitioner No. 1 got encased those cheques. On that very day at about 3.00 p.m. the petitioners forced him to sign certain promissory notes, cheques, papers general power of attorneys-cum-agreements affidavits and two special power of attorneys (all blank) and told him that whenever he would pay the remaining amount these documents would be returned. On the basis of this statement made by respondent No. 2, the FIR in question was recorded on 4-4-1995.

(3.) It is stated in the present petition that there were certain business dealings between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 for quite some time and on account of some misunderstanding the said FIR was got recorded by respondent No. 2; that at the intervention of certain friends and respectables a compromise was effected between the parties on 7-4-1995, copy of which is Annexure P4 : that thereafter the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. It is then stated that all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and no useful purpose would be served by further investigation and continuation of the case. Thus, it is stated that although some of the offences mentioned in the FIR are non-compoundable, yet the Court in its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ought to quash the FIR to meet the ends of Justice and for the maintenance of good business relations between the parties.