The High Court quashed an FIR under Section 306 IPC and the SC/ST Act, 1989 after finding that the complainant filed a complaint based on a mistaken belief and the parties had amicably settled the dispute through compromise.
FIR No. 130 and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-18598 of 2009
Date of decision: 10.08.2009
Suresh Kumar alias Bhola
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. B.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the FIR No. 130, dated 2.11.2007 under Section 306 IPC and Sections 8 and 10 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nangal, District Ropar, registered on a complaint filed by respondent No. 4-Saroj Kumari, on the basis of a compromise, which has been entered into between the parties. What has been alleged in the present petition is that there are certain misunderstandings, which have come into existence leading to the filing of the present FIR and now the same having been removed and the
Crl. Misc. No. M-18598 of 2009
-2-
complainant having realized that it was under a bona fide mistake and belief that she had made such a statement implicating the petitioner in the said FIR. It has further been stated that the misunderstandings and misgivings between them have been removed due to the intervention of certain friends and relatives and all good wishers and, therefore, she does not have any grudge as of now against the petitioner and she also does not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Upon notice having been issued, a reply on behalf of respondent No. 4-Saroj Kumari has been filed in the Court, wherein she has admitted the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and, therefore, states that there is no ill will left out after the doubts having been cleared and she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. It has further been stated that she had already given an affidavit dated 09.07.2009, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.
The complainant is present in the Court. She has categorically stated that her misgivings and misunderstanding have been cleared. There is no further doubt in her mind with regard to the allegations, which she had made in the FIR, which was registered at her behest. She has no further grudge against the petitioner and also has no objection if the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
In view of the fact that the statement has been given by Smt. Saroj Kumari and an affidavit has also been filed, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 and the reply, which has been filed in this Court apart from her personal statement before this Court and the matter having been amicably resolved between the parties and the doubts having been cleared, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are continued before the trial Court, which would lead to wastage of Court
Crl. Misc. No. M-18598 of 2009
-3-
time, energy and money and only an effort would be required on the part of both the parties, who have to appear before the Court on each date.
Keeping in view this position and the matter having been amicably resolved between the parties and further that 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. 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 the course of a litigation.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18598 of 2009
-4-
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.”
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.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 130, dated 2.11.2007 under Section 306 IPC and Sections 8 and 10 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nangal, District Ropar, along with all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE
August 10, 2009 pj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Section 306 IPC and the SC/ST Act, 1989 can be quashed on compromise despite being non-compoundable offences.
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash proceedings in cases involving non-compoundable offences when parties have amicably settled the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶26
Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Suresh Kumar alias Bhola
State of Punjab
Saroj Kumari
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
