TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Quashes FIR Based on Compromise & Legal Abuse</h1> The petition seeking the quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC was allowed by the High Court. The court considered the compromise between the parties, ... Dishonor of Cheque - compromise has been arrived between the parties and compromise deed has been placed on record - HELD THAT:- In the present case, petitioners are facing criminal proceedings qua commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC. It is the case of the petitioners that they had not received the summons qua the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act pending against them. The moment petitioners came to know about the same, they have paid the cheque amount in question to the complainant and they have been discharged in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Since in the main case, petitioners have been ordered to be discharged in view of compromise effected between the parties, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 174-A, IPC would be nothing but an abuse of process of law - Petition allowed. Issues: Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC based on compromise between parties and non-receipt of summons by petitioners.In this judgment, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of FIR No. 391 dated 20.6.2014, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, along with all subsequent proceedings. The petitioners argued that no service was properly effected upon them, and a compromise had been reached between the parties, resulting in their discharge. The petitioners expressed willingness to participate in court proceedings and had no intention to avoid them. The State counsel opposed the petition, claiming that the petitioners should face criminal proceedings for deliberately not appearing before the Trial Court.The counsel for respondent No. 2 stated no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings, as the parties had amicably settled their dispute. The compromise deed indicated that the complainant had been paid the amount in question, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been withdrawn, and the petitioners were discharged. The petitioners, facing criminal proceedings under Section 174-A IPC, argued that they were unaware of the summons regarding the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act until later, at which point they promptly paid the amount to the complainant and were discharged from that complaint.The petitioners' counsel presented reports from the Process Server, indicating that the petitioners had not received the summons related to the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Given the compromise between the parties in the main case resulting in the discharge of the petitioners, the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 174-A IPC was deemed an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and FIR No. 391 dated 20.6.2014, under Section 174-A IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
