Allowed

Hardial Singh & Ors. v. Bachan Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2009CRM-M/2864/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint under the SC/ST Act and IPC. Relying on precedent, the Court held that interest of justice and a settlement between parties justified quashing consequential proceedings in a non-compoundable offence.

What did the court decide?

Complaint dated 4.5.2002 under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, 1989, Section 506 IPC, and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Hardial Singh & Ors. Vs Bachan Singh & Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Crl.Misc.No.34961 of 2009 in Crl.Misc.No.M-2864 of 2008

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Mr.K.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶5

Mr.H.S.Sangha, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶6

¶7

Allowed as prayed for. Affidavit dated 30.4.2009 is taken on

¶8

record.

¶9

Crl.Misc. Application stands disposed of.

¶10

August 05, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶12

Crl.Misc.No.M-2864 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 05.08.2009

¶13

Hardial Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. Bachan Singh and another ....Respondent(s) ***

¶14

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ***

¶15

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

¶16

Mr.H.S.Sangha, Advocate, for complainant-respondent No.1.

¶17

Mr.K.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2.

¶18

¶19

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

¶20

The present petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint dated 4.5.2002 filed under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 IPC (Annexure P-5) and the summoning order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present petition, a compromise has been entered into between the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.1. According to the said compromise, the complainant does not want to pursue the complaint pending before the trial Court. An affidavit dated 30.4.2009 has been placed on record by the complainant. On the basis of the compromise

¶22

Crl.Misc.No.M-2864 of 2009

¶23

-2-

¶24

entered into between the parties, the counsel for the petitioners prays that the complaint dated 4.5.2002 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. Bachan Singh son of Sudha Singh, resident of village Chauke, P.S.Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, who is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel, states that since he and the petitioners are residents of the same village, have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables of the village and have resorted to live amicably without any grudge against each other.

¶25

In view of the statement of the complainant and the affidavit dated 30.4.2009 which has been placed on record, it would be in the interest of justice that the matter having been settled between the parties and resultantly, a compromise having been entered into, the complaint in question be quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶26

A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while

¶27

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

¶29

Crl.Misc.No.M-2864 of 2009

¶30

-3-

¶31

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 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.”

¶33

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned complaint dated 4.5.2002 under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 IPC (Annexure P-5) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶34

August 05, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

Hardial Singh & Ors. v. Bachan Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardial Singh & Ors. v. Bachan Singh & 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

Preet Brar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rakesh Bhushan & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Neelam and Ors. Vs Vijay

A.G. Raju Vs State of Punjab

Sunita Sud Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakhshish Singh Vs Ssp, Tarn Taran and Ors.