Allowed

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2010CRM-M/11987/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a compromise between parties, holding that Section 482 power extends to non-compoundable offences to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 121 dated 13.4.2005 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 379, 427, 34, 326 IPC and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-11987 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 09, 2010

¶3

Gurdeep Singh and Others ...........Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶7

Present: Mr.R.S.Sidhu, Advocate

¶8

for the petitioners Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Ranjodh Singh,Advocate for respondents 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. 121 dated 13.4.2005 under Sections 323,324,341,379,427,34 (lateron added Section 326) of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhaina 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. In fact, petitioner No.1 had got registered an FIR against

¶12

Crl. Misc. No. M-11987 of 2010 (O&M)

¶13

-2-

¶14

respondent No.2 and others.

¶15

Respondents No.2 is present in person along with his counsel, who has filed reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2, wherein he has prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed.

¶16

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.

¶17

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:-

¶18

“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 dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-11987 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶20

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?

¶21

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this 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 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 live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.

¶24

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.121 dated 13.4.2005 under Sections 323, 324, 341,379,427,34 (later on added Section 326) IPC registered at Police Station Jagraon District Ludhaina as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .

¶25

( Sabina ) Judge

¶26

arya

¶27

July 09, 2010

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Sunil and Another Vs State of Haryana

Sukhpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranbir Singh @ Goldy Vs State of Punjab

Bhushan Bhardwaj Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jasmer Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Another