Allowed

Meetu and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2009CRM-M/6625/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitions sought quashing of an FIR and cross-version regarding a scuffle leading to charges of unlawful assembly and grievous hurt. Based on a comprehensive compromise between the warring parties, the High Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No. 179 and the cross-version therein along with consequent proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

**Crl. Misc. No. 6625-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.7.2009 *****

Meetu & Ors.

.. Petitioners

Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶8

.. Respondents.

¶9

With Crl. Misc. No. 6630-M of 2009

¶10

¶11

Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

¶12

.. Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶17

Present:Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate

¶18

Mr. N.C. Doabia, Advocate

¶19

**Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab *****

¶20

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶21

According to prosecution version on 20.8.2008 a scuffle took place between petitioners Meetu & Ors. on one side and Sandeep Kumar & Ors. on the other side. On the basis of statement made by Sandeep Kumar son of Joginder Pal, petitioners of Crl. Misc. No. 6625-M of 2009 namely Meetu, Sonu, Deepu, Sunny and Raja were booked under Sections 326, 324, 148, 149 IPC vide FIR No.179 dated 4.9.2008, Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur. Likewise, pursuant to statement made by Pardeep Kumar alias Deepu son of Jagdish Kumar, the petitioners of Crl. Misc. No. 6630-M of 2009 namely Sandeep Kumar, Bikey, Balbir Singh and Sukha, were booked in the cross-case, under Sections 326, 324, 148 and

¶22

¶23

149 IPC, in the same FIR.

¶24

Through the above-referred petitions, which are being disposed of by this common judgment, both the parties have sought the quashing of the above-stated FIR as well as cross-version therein, on the basis of compromise stated to have taken place amongst them. Written compromise (Annexures P-2 in both the petitions) and affidavits of Sandeep Kumar and Pardeep Kumar have also been annexed with the petitions, authenticating the said compromise entered between the parties and their no objection with regard to the quashing of the impugned FIR and cross version therein.

¶25

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.

¶26

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:-

¶27

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

¶28

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:-

¶29

“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

¶30

¶31

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.

¶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

In the instant case, the parties, with prevalent of good sense have decided the dispute amicably and have purchased peace for each other. The parties are related to each other and it would also help them to maintain and control the social order. The parties since have decided not to pursue their respective cases, there are very bleak chance of success of prosecution case. Thus, taking into account these facts coupled with the law, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no impediment in exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as continuance of such a prosecution is just an exercise in futility.

¶34

In view of the discussion above, the instant petitions are allowed. Impugned FIR No. 179 dated 4.9.2008, under Sections 326, 324, 148 and 149 IPC, Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur and the crossversion therein along-with consequent proceedings thereto, against the

¶35

¶36

petitioners are quashed.

¶37

The copy of this order be placed in the connected petitions.

¶38

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶39

July 10,2009 Jiten

Meetu and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meetu and Ors. v. State of Punjab

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

Tikka Ram @ Tek Chand Vs Tara Chand

Gulab Singh & Anr. Vs Balbir Kaur & Anr.

M/S Metro Rim India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs M/S Steel Strips Limited & Another

Malkiat Ram etc. Vs Krishna Devi

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

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