Single judge allowed quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC based on settlement agreement between parties in case involving sections 363/354 IPC.
FIR No. 368 dated 24.10.2009 registered under Sections 363/354 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are 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-32523 of 2009
Date of decision : January 20, 2010
Charanjeev Singh @ Chanki
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Mor, DAG Haryana
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 368 dated 24.10.2009 registered at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal under Sections 363/354 IPC on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) dated 14.11.2009 between the parties. A copy of the original compromise has been filed in the Court and the same is taken on record.
Both the parties are present in the Court and have been identified by their respective counsel.
As per compromise, the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and no purpose would be served if the case is tried because due to compromise respondent No. 2 will not support the case and it will be a wastage of precious time of this Court.
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 1980(1) SCC 63 that “the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when the
Crl. Misc. No. M-32523 of 2009
2
parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”
Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052, that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. but parties entering into compromise, this Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.PC. to allow compounding of noncompoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The present one is a case covered by the views observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned above and, is therefore, a fit case to quash the FIR.
In view of the above, FIR No. 368 dated 24.10.2009 registered at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal under Sections 363/354 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arisen out of the same are quashed.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
20.01.2010 reena
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR and subsequent proceedings under sections 363/354 IPC should be quashed in view of settlement between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and othersExplained¶17
Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 1980(1) SCC 63 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and anotherApplied¶21
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Charanjeev Singh @ Chanki
State of Haryana
Another
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
