In a petition for quashing an FIR registered under various IPC sections based on a compromise, the full bench cited precedent that supported quashing proceedings after an amicable settlement. Finding the matter resolved, the court allowed the petition.
The FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom 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-31490 of 2008 Date of decision : 15.04.2009
Harvinder Kaur and others
....Petitioners
V/s
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents.
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sandeep S.Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab for the respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Jatinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for quashing of the FIR No. 179 dated 24.08.2008 registered under Sections 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 427 IPC at police station 'B' division Amritsar on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been amicably settled by the parties and the complainant does not want to press the charges.
Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute this statement made by counsel for the petitioner.
Counsel for the State has also filed a reply by way of an affidavit of Manwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Pollice City1, Amritsar. According to the said affidavit, offence under Section 307 IPC has not been proved and has been deleted from the FIR. Learned counsel
Crl. Misc No. M-31490 of 2008
-2-
for the State further submits that in case a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the State shall not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question.
Learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the affidavit of the complainant filed on 29.01.2009, when he was present in Court and has pointed out that the complainant had clearly stated therein that he had no objection to quashing of the FIR in question.
The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings.
In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.), 1052.
Resultantly the present petition is allowed, the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
15.04.2009 Ajay
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR involving offences under Sections 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 42 IPC can be quashed after a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.
Whether the continuance of criminal proceedings serves any useful purpose after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶22
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.), 1052
Harvinder Kaur and others
State of Haryana
Another
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
