Satwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This is a petition filed by the petitioners for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 23 of 16.2.1993, Police Station Barnala, District Sangrur, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The said F.I.R. was registered on the complaint of Surinder Pal Kaur. F.I.R. annexure P/1 mentions that Waryam Singh deceased executed a registered Will in favour of the complainantSurinder Pal Kaur on 24.1.1992 vide which he gave her his moveable and immoveable properties. The property is situated in village Toosa, District Ludhiana and the deceased had transport business named M/s. Deol Bus Service registered at Barnala. Out of the four buses, the bus No. PB13/1095 came to the share of her father in family partition and that till his death he plied the said bus. It is also mentioned in the complaint that in view of the registered Will, the complainant (was) plying the bus under her control and that she became owner in possession of the abovesaid property. The permit of the said bus is not sold to anybody. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the petitioners have prepared forged affidavit dated 15.1.1992 on behalf of her father on which the signatures of her father are not there. It is further stated that the said forged affidavit is got signed in Urdu fraudulently from some other person and that the petitioners in connivance with each other have produced the said forged affidavit in court in order to cause loss to her. In the last, it is mentioned that the petitioners by preparing the said document have committed offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and are liable to be punished accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 appearing before me have stated that the parties have compromised regarding all the properties including the bus in question and that the F.I.R. may be quashed. In other words, the author of the F.I.R. also wants the same to be quashed. A copy of the complaint pending (in) the court below and the compromise also produced in this court. They are admitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have cited before me the cases of Ishwar v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) R.C.R. 391 and Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) R.C.R. 84. In the case of Ishwar v. State of Haryana (supra) the learned Single Judge has held that "where the parties are close relatives and have amicably settled the dispute regarding property and do not want to pursue the case and even though the offence with which petitioners have been charged are not compoundable yet considering the fact that the parties had buried the hatchet by settling all disputes amicably, continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of court and the FIR registered on the basis of complaint as well as chargesheet and subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed."

In the case of Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1994(1) R.C.R. 84, the learned Single Judge of this court has observed that "where the offences are under Sections 307/326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the F.I.R. was lodged and the parties have entered into compromise without any coercion and settled the disputed amicably and no longer nourishing any illwill, the chances of success of prosecution case is bleak and the F.I.R. be quashed".

In this present case, I am of the opinion that it will not be of any reasonable consequence to proceed any further with the proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. in question when all the disputes regarding the property including the bus in question have been settled and that no purpose will be served if the further proceedings are allowed to continue any more and, therefore, the F.I.R. in this case deserves to be quashed.

According the petition is allowed F.I.R. annexure P/1 and the challan filed consequent to the F.I.R. are quashed.