Allowed

Bhajan Sijngh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2010CRM-M/11407/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 323, 341 IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Citing principles of social harmony, the court quashed the proceedings and subsequent actions upon a valid compromise between the parties.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.332 dated 12.10.2007 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed in the interest of justice.

Bhajan Sijngh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-11407 of 2010 Date of Decision:23.7.2010

¶3

Bhajan Singh and others

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S.Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.332 dated 12.10.2007 registered under Sections 323/341 IPC and Section 3/4/5 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners on the allegations of beatings and obscene language. However, the matter has been compromised. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Short reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant authenticating the compromise has also been placed on record. A separate statement of respondent No.2/complainant authenticating the compromise has also been recorded in the Court today. As per the compromise/affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the

¶17

CRM M-11407 of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

FIR in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of her own sweet will.

¶20

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-

¶21

“ 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.”

¶22

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008

¶23

(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶24

“ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be

¶25

CRM M-11407 of 2010 -3utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶26

Taking into account that the allegation in FIR, the compromise, short reply by way of affidavit of the complainant and the statement before this Court authenticating the compromise, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.332 dated 12.10.2007 registered under Sections 323/341 IPC and Section 3/4/5 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

¶28

23.7.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE

Bhajan Sijngh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhajan Sijngh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Makhan Singh @ Sonu & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Des Raj and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurkirpal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Haryana

Gajjan Vs State of Haryana

Jasdev Singh Vs State of Punjab