Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1532 (PNJ)

Jugal Kishore v. State Of Punjab

2007-08-23

S.S.SARON

body2007
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing FIR No. 45 dated 10.7.1996 (Annexure-P.1) for the offence under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala. 2. A perusal of the FIR dated 10.7.1996 (Annexure-P.1) would show that it has been alleged by the complainant Darshan Singh (respondent No. 2) that the petitioner took a sum of Rs. 1.20 Lacs from him for sending his son abroad and since 1992 he neither sent his son abroad nor returned any amount to him till date. The petitioner had also taken the passport of the complainant. The complainant also incurred a further loss of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant had arranged the amount after taking loan at the rate of 2% per month. The petitioner on being asked to return the amount had been putting of the matter. 3. A compromise was thereafter effected and the complainant- Darshan Singh (respondent No. 2) deposed an affidavit dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure-P.2) inter alia stating that a compromise had been effected in the Panchayat with the petitioner and he had received full amount from his legal representatives and he did not want to prosecute the FIR. 4. Learned counsel submits that in view of the compromise the FIR is liable to be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the amount of Rs. 1.20 Lacs had been paid by the complainant-respondent No. 2 in 1992 and since then neither his son was sent abroad nor was the amount returned. It is ten years thereafter that an affidavit dated 15.2.2003 (Annexure-P.2) is stated to have been deposed by Darshan Singh-respondent No. 2 that he had received the full amount. The petitioner himself is a proclaimed offender and is in America. The offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the Court. 6. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and also the fact that the amount in question was withheld for a period of ten years and thereafter he has been declared a proclaimed offender, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, dismissed.