MANIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to quash the FIR No. 31 dated 10.3.1997 registered under sections 420/468/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the subsequent criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Phagwara, in view of the compromise dated 9.7.1999 entered into by the parties.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioners are that the second petitioner opened account in the name of second respondent-Harivansh Mehta impersonating the 2nd respondent and Ist Petitioner identified the 2nd petitioner as Harivansh Mehta. The 2nd petitioner deposited the divident warrants issued in favour of 2nd respondent (complainant) and withdrew the amount immediately after realisation. Thus, according to the complainant, he has been cheated. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered and on the basis of the investigation, a challan has been filed against both the petitioners for the offences of cheating, forgery and impersonation. The petitioners are now seeking to have the FIR quashed on the basis of the compromise.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon me by relying upon two decisions of this Court by showing that no useful purpose will be served if the trial is allowed to be proceeded when the complainant compromised the matter with the accused-petitioner. In Satwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(4) RCC 21, the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that it will not be of any reasonable consequences to proceed any further with the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question when all the disputes regarding the property including Bus in question has been settled and no purpose will be served when the further proceedings are allowed to continue. In that case, the offences alleged to have been committed are under sections 465, 467, 471 and 120-B and IPC. He also relied upon the decision of another learned Single Judge in Mohinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCC 556, wherein it has been held that the parties have compromised and no useful purpose will be served when the proceedings arising out of the FIR are allowed to continue.