Allowed

Sunil Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2009CRM-M/20087/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR and consequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on petitioners seeking quashing due to amicable settlement by complainant. Court held continued prosecution futile and abuse of process, allowing petition despite non-compoundable nature of offences involved, emphasizing ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No. 109 dated 12.7.2000 and all consequent proceedings qua petitioners are quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Sunil Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

**Crl. Misc. No. 20087-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.8.2009 *****

¶3

Sunil Kumar Gupta & Anr.

¶4

.. Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶7

.. Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶9

Present:Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for petitioners.

¶10

Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab.

¶11

**Ms. Monika Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****

¶12

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶13

Through the instant petition quashing of FIR No. 109 dated 12.7.2000, under Sections 384, 511, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC and 25,54,59 of Arms Act, Police Station City Khanna and consequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioners, has been sought.

¶14

It has been contended that on account of some family circumstances, the impugned FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners and others, but now with the intervention of respectables, the petitioners and complainant have settled the dispute amicably and the complainant has decided not to pursue the case against the petitioners. Compromise (Annexure P-2) and affidavit (Annexure P-3) of complainant have also been filed along with the petition wherein the complainant has stated his no objection as to the quashing of the impugned FIR against the petitioners.

¶15

By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or

¶16

that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

¶17

In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:-

¶18

“ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”

¶19

The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder 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, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in noncompoundable offence(s) has held as under:-

¶20

“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.

¶21

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 noncompoundable 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.”

¶22

In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have put to rest the litigation. Since the complainant has decided to withdraw from the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.

¶23

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioners are quashed.

¶24

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶25

August 4,2009 Jiten

Sunil Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of Punjab 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

Chao Khan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwiner Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Deepak @ Deepak K. Bhatti Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Devender Dungarwal Vs State of Haryana etc.

Husan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab