Pardeep Motors Hire Purchase Corporation And Anr vs Jagdish Raj And Anr

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint and order dated 25.10.2019 passed by

the learned Sub-Judge (Judicial Magistrate), Jammu.

Briefly stated the facts in this petition that the petitioners had agreed to purchase the vehicle from the respondents for which Rs.5,00,000/- was

given by way of advance payment. Respondents issued receipt of the same. It appears that some dispute arose between the parties, resultantly an

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed for registering the FIR. After considering the application, learned Sub-Judge (Judicial Magistrate),

Jammu, vide his order dated 25.10.2019 directed SHO Police Station Nowabad to register an FIR under law and investigate the matter. In pursuance

to this direction, FIR No. 158/2019 under Section 341/383 IPC has been registered in the Police Station Nowabad Jammu and investigation has been

proceeded.

It is submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and have entered into a compromise and in terms of the Compromise Deed does

not want to proceed further.

Parties have appeared in person and to ascertain the contents of compromise, their statements have also been recorded. They submit that they have

settled their dispute amicably out of their own free will and without any external pressure or coercion. Complainant submits that he has no objection if

the FIR lodged by him along with consequential proceedings in the case titled Jagdish Raj vs M/s Pardeep Motors Hire Purchase Corporation & anr.

pending before the Court of learned Sub-

Similar issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh & ors. versus State of Punjab & ors., (2014) 6 SCC 466, vide which

the guidelines were framed for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue

with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3 & 29.4 are reproduced below:-

29.3 Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,

rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been

committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are

not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial

transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among

themselves.

Therefore, such power is not to be exercised in prosecutions which involve heinous & serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape,

dacoity, etc.

In the present case also, the offence alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the offences of heinous nature of mental depravity, like

murder, rape, dacoity as such, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that they have settled the matter and decided to

live in a peace and harmony and the complainant having specifically agreed that he has no objection if FIR as stated above is quashed.

In view of the compromise, possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings will cause grave injustice to the parties as the

parties are no longer interested in pursing the same.

In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this petition is allowed. Order dated 25.10.2019 and

consequently FIR No. 158/2019 are quashed.

CMs also stand disposed of as such.