Allowed

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2009CRM-M/17151/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR No. 50 under Sections 342/354/506/376/511 IPC along with consequential proceedings based on a compromise dated 01.06.2009 between the petitioner and the complainant, relying on precedents allowing quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 50 dated 01.04.2009 under Sections 342/354/506/376/511 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab etc. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-17151 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-17151 of 2009

¶5

Date of decision: 24.08.2009

¶6

Gurwinder Singh son of Jasvir Singh

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

Present : Mr. S.S.Rangi Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. H.S.Tuli, Advocate, for respondent No. 2-complainant.

¶15

¶16

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the FIR No. 50 dated 01.04.2009 under Sections 342/354/506/376/511 IPC registered at Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise, which has been entered into between the parties.

¶18

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-17151 of 2009

¶20

¶21

present petition deserves to be allowed in view of the compromise dated 01.06.2009 which has been entered into between the parties which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. He submits that this compromise has been entered into with the intervention of the Panchayat and respectables of the society along with the relatives of the petitioner and respondent No. 2-complainant. He further submits that the father of the complainant, namely, Kewal Singh s/o Sh. Hardev Singh has also filed an affidavit in the Court accepting the factum of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties and the grandfather of the girl, namely, Hardev Singh s/o Sh. Wariam Singh has also filed an affidavit. On the basis of this, counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR deserves to be quashed. He relies upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Harpal Singh @ Soni vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 459, Deepa and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (4) AICLR 426 and Talwinder Singh @ Laddi and another vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 970, which pertain to the same offences and on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court has been pleased to quash the FIRs.

¶22

Affidavits of Jaspreet Kaur d/o Kewal Singh, Kewal Singh s/o Hardev Singh and Hardev Singh s/o Wariam Singh dated 24.08.2009 are taken on record, which have been filed by counsel for respondent No. 2. He, on the basis of these affidavits, submits that in view of the compromise having been entered into between the parties, the FIR in question may be quashed. He further contends that the petitioner being a young boy and a student similarly respondent No. 2 is also a student, it would be in the interest of justice for the well being of their lives and future that the FIR is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-17151 of 2009

¶24

¶25

Jaspreet Kaur d/o Kewal Singh, Kewal Singh her father and Hardev Singh her grandfather are present in the Court (as have been identified by their counsel). The complainant has also been identified by HC Gurmeet Singh, Police Station Khamano. They state that in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2, they do not want to pursue the matter any further and with the intervention of the Panchayat and respectables of the society and all well wishers, the dispute having been amicably resolved and the FIR was primarily registered on the basis of a misunderstanding which has taken place between the parties and the same having been resolved, they do not want to further pursue the matter so that the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 being of young age and students may proceed in their lives forward.

¶26

In view of the above statements made by the complainant, her father and her grandfather accepting the compromise and further that they do not want to further proceed with the matter, further relying upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Harpal Singh @ Soni vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) Deepa and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and Talwinder Singh @ Laddi and another vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), it would be in the interest of justice that the present FIR be quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶27

A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offence(s), has held as under:-

¶28

“28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-17151 of 2009

¶30

¶31

non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “ finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.

¶32

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶33

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are continued before the trial Court.

¶34

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 50 dated 01.04.2009 under Sections 342/354/506/376/511 IPC registered at Police

¶35

Crl. Misc. No. M-17151 of 2009

¶36

¶37

Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶38

( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶39

August 24, 2009 pj

¶40