Allowed

Harbans Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab & Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2010CRM-M/13013/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Punjab and Haryana HC allowed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash FIR and subsequent proceedings for Sections 467, 468, 120-B IPC based on compromise between parties to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 130 dated 3.9.2003 under Sections 467, 468, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

Harbans Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-13013 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 15, 2010

¶3

Harbans Kaur and others

¶4

...........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶8

Present: Mr.J.S.Uppal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶9

¶10

Sabina, J.

¶11

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 130 dated 3.9.2003 under Sections 467, 468 lateron added Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P2).

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise.

¶13

Crl. Misc. No. M-13013 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶14

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and the contents of the compromise deed (Annexure P2) and her affidavit (Annexure P3). She has further submitted that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶15

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

¶16

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

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-13013 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶20

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?

¶21

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

¶22

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 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. 130 dated 3.9.2003 under Sections 467,468 lateron added Section 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .

¶26

( Sabina ) Judge

¶27

July 15, 2009

¶28

arya

Harbans Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbans Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab & Another

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

Sudhir Kheterpal & Anr. Vs F.C.I. & Anr.

Piara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Renu Rana Vs Bahadur Singh

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.