Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2025 (PNJ)

Manish Bhandari v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-10

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2006
Judgment 1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.173, dated 4.7.2005, registered under Sections 420/379/409/506 of the IPC, at police Station Nawanshahar. 2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1 is an architect and petitioner No.2 works with him. Petitioner No.1 was granted a contract by respondent No.2, to construct his house. A written agreement dated 28.6.2002 was executed. Thereafter, differences arose as to the construction of the house, and respondent No.2 lodged the aforementioned FIR. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the FIR was lodged, under Sections 420/379/409/506 of the IPC, a report has been filed, under Sec.420 of the IPC. It is further contended that on 14.11.2005, they amicably settled the dispute, by way of a formal deed of final settlement dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure P-3 ). It is further argued that the fir, as also all proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. 4. Counsel for respondent No.2 does not deny the factum of settlement, between the parties. He prays that as the parties have resolved their differences and as the offence is compoundable with the permission of the Court, the present FIR be quashed. 5. Counsel for the State of Punjab, in essence, supports the contention, raised by counsel for respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the FIR reveals that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 executed a contract, requiring petitioner No.1 to construct a house for respondent No.2. A sum of Rs.94 lacs was paid to petitioner no.1. However, as work was not completed, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR. A perusal of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. Violation of a contract, in the absence of any mens rea, cannot lead to the inference of the commission of a criminal offence. The fir accuses the petitioners of receiving a sum of Rs.94 lacs and thereafter not completing his contractual obligations. The bare minimum allegations, required for the commission of an offence, under Sec.420 of the IPC, are absent from the averments in the FIR, as also from the report, filed under section 173 (2) of the Cr. The fir accuses the petitioners of receiving a sum of Rs.94 lacs and thereafter not completing his contractual obligations. The bare minimum allegations, required for the commission of an offence, under Sec.420 of the IPC, are absent from the averments in the FIR, as also from the report, filed under section 173 (2) of the Cr. P. C. Even otherwise, pursuant to a settlement (Annexure P-3), petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have resolved their differences, and as noticed herein above, counsel for respondent No.2 has supported, the prayer of counsel for the petitioners that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. 6. In view of what has been stated above, particularly that the FIR does not disclose the commission of an offence, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.173, dated 4.7.2005, registered under Sections 420/379/409/506 of the IPC, at Police Station Nawanshahar, as also all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, are quashed.