Allowed

Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2010CRM-M/11489/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR No. 137 registered under Sections 363/366 IPC. The Court observed that parties had reached a compromise and the complainant's daughter was married to the petitioner, holding that continued prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 137 dated 25.12.2008 under Sections 363/366 IPC and subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-11489 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 02, 2010

¶3

Harpal Singh

¶4

...........Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶8

Present: Mr.Liaqat Ali Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Arshwiner Singh,Deputy Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Tarundeep, Advocate for respondent No.2 **

¶9

Sabina, J.

¶10

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 137 dated 25.12.2008 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sudhar (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise ,

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise. Complainant has performed the marriage of her daughter Manpreet Kaur with the petitioner.

¶12

Crl. Misc. No. M-11489 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶13

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with her daughter, has admitted the factum of marriage of her daughter with the petitioner. She has placed on record the original compromise deed effected between the parties. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶14

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶15

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶16

“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-11489 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶18

dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶19

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this

¶20

Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where

¶21

technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile

¶22

exercise.”

¶23

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in order to

¶24

live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.

¶25

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 137 dated 25.12.2008 under Sections 363/366 IPC registered at Police Station Sudhar (Annexure P1) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .

¶26

( Sabina ) Judge

¶27

July 02, 2009

¶28

arya

Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab and 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

Raj Kumar Vs State Ofp B.

Angrejo Vs Sewa Singh and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Parshad Vs Prem Kumar.

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Singh @ Kinder and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daya Singh Vs State of Haryana