Allowed

Rajneesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2009CRM-M/32698/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court examined a request to quash an FIR based on a settled compromise. The single Judge held that the dispute was amicably resolved and the prosecution witness withdrew, declaring further proceedings futile and improper under the circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Rajneesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

**Crl. Misc. No. 32698--M of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.7.2009 *****

¶4

Rajneesh Kumar & Ors.

¶5

.. Petitioners.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶8

.. Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶10

Present:Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. AG Punjab.

¶12

**Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *****

¶13

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶14

The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 150 dated 17.10.2002, registered under Sections 409, 420, 506, 34 IPC, at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar, Punjab on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties

¶15

The impugned FIR was got lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and it has been contended that now with the intervention of respectables, both the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners. Compromise (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record. As per compromise the dispute pending between the parties have been resolved amicably by making the due payment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that against one of the co-accused namely Vinay Jallandhari the impugned FIR has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶16

The attorney namely Manjeet Singh of the complainantrespondent No.2 has put in appearance through counsel and placed on

¶17

¶18

record the attested copy of the power of attorney. He has also filed an affidavit admitting the factum of the compromise having entered between the parties and no objection for quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶19

In the reply filed on behalf of State although quashing has been opposed, but 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 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.

¶20

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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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.”

¶27

In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have put to rest their litigation and the complainant, the star witness of the prosecution has since 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.

¶28

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR registered against the petitioners and all other subsequent proceedings therein are quashed.

¶29

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶30

July 13,2009 Jiten

Rajneesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Kumar and Ors. 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

Malkiat Ram etc. Vs Krishna Devi

Meetu and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sachin Sood and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohd. Ismail and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.