Allowed

Gurvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2009CRM-M/18272/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition to quash an FIR implicating sections of the IPC. Relying on a precedent, the bench held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC permit quashing of proceedings in non-compoundable offences if a valid compromise prevents abuse of law.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 108 dated 26.07.2007 and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Gurvinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-18272 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: 12.08.2009

¶4

Gurvinder Singh and others

¶5

..... PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present : Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

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

¶12

Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶13

¶14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No. 108 dated 26.07.2007 under Sections 323/324/452/342/506/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Kurali District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-4 and the same is dated 21.03.2009.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioners contends that in the light of the amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties, no further grudges are pending between them. The complainant i.e. Jagdev Singh son of Ajit

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-18272 of 2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

Singh and the injured, namely, Harjinder Singh son of Karnail Singh and Hardeep Singh son of Sh. Labh Singh have submitted their affidavits in Court accepting the factum of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties and they have stated that they do not want to pursue the case any further in view of the amicable resolution of the dispute by the interference of the respectables of Panchayat, relatives and respectable persons of the society. He, on this basis, prays for quashing of the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶20

Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 also states that the complainant and the injured have no objection if the said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶21

Sh. Jagdev Singh son of Ajit Singh, Harjinder Singh son of Karnail Singh and Hardeep Singh son of Labh Singh are present in Court and each of them were asked about the fact as to whether the compromise has been entered into and further that whether they would have any objection to the FIR in question in the light of the compromise having been entered into between the parties and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. They have stated that the compromise has been entered into and they have no objection if the said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. They have submitted their affidavits, which have been placed on record.

¶22

In view of the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and is accepted by them in Court and affidavits to that effect have been filed in the Court and further an assertion is made that they would have no objection if the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed, it would be in the interest of justice that the said FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-18272 of 2009

¶24

-3-

¶25

therefrom be quashed. The intent and purpose for having different laws is to regulate the conduct of the members of the society. If during that process, some misunderstanding arises leading to a dispute between the parties, the endeavour should always be made that the matter be amicably resolved so that peace in the society is maintained.

¶26

In the present case, the parties have entered into a compromise and have resolved all their disputes and made a new beginning in the respective lives so that they do not have any grudge against each other.

¶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 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

¶29

-4-

¶30

Crl. Misc. No. M-18272 of 2009

¶31

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. 108 dated 26.07.2007 under Sections 323/324/452/342/506/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Kurali District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶35

( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶36

August 12, 2009 pj

Gurvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Surinder Kaur @ Chhindi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Baghail Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sandeep Singh @ Deepa Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Avtar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.