Allowed

Jasbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2009CRM-M/13428/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a cross case (FIR No. 115) involving sections 307/148/149 IPC and Arms Act Sections 25/27. The court quashed the proceedings based on a compromise arrived at between the parties to ensure future peace, citing that further prosecution would be futile.

What did the court decide?

Cross case registered under the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Jasbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. M No. 13428 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 26, 2009

¶3

Jasbir Singh and others ...........Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana and another

¶6

..........Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶8

Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Maloo Chahal,Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2 **

¶9

Sabina, J.

¶10

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of cross case under Sections 307/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC' for short) and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act' for short) registered on the statement of Wazir Singh in case FIR No. 115 dated 18.2.2009 under Sections 307/148/149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Act at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal (Annexure P2) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P4).

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a case of cross version and there were 16 accused in the FIR and 18 accused in the cross version. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have arrived at a compromise in order to live in peace in future. Parties belonged to the same village. The civil litigation was pending between the parties and the same had been also settled.

¶12

Crl. Misc. M No. 13428 of 2009 -2-

¶13

Respondent No.2 , who is present in person along with his counsel has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P4). In reply filed by respondent No.2, the contents of the petition had been admitted as correct. Respondent No.2 has stated that he has no objection, if the cross case in FIR in question is quashed.

¶14

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶15

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶16

“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which

¶17

Crl. Misc. M No. 13428 of 2009

¶18

-3-

¶19

is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶20

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”

¶21

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.

¶22

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Cross case registered on the statement of Wazir Singh under Sections 307/148/149 IPC and Sections 25,27 of the Act in case FIR No. 115 dated 18.2.2009 registered under Sections 307/148/149 IPC and Sections 25,27 of the Act at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal (Anneuxre P2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .

¶23

( Sabina ) Judge

¶24

May 26, 2009 arya

Jasbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Umar Mohammad Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Raj Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Charanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Wazir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.