Allowed

Ravi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2010CRM-M/13430/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR involving assault and criminal intimidation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a valid compromise between parties in a dispute of a personal nature warrants quashing to secure the ends of justice, even for non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.168 dated 3.3.2010 and all subsequent proceedings thereunder are quashed.

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

¶1

#1#

¶2

Crl.M.No.13430-M of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

¶4

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Crl.M.No.13430-M of 2010

¶6

Date of Order: 17.12.2010

Ravi and others

.....Petitioners

Vs.

State of Punjab and another

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶13

Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

¶15

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶16

Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.168 dated 3.3.2010 under Sections 452/323/506/341/148/149 IPC, P.S Kotwali, Bathinda and the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise.

¶17

As per allegations in the FIR, petitioners armed with kirpan, stick and rods respectively entered the house of the complainant and while raising lalkara they inflicted injuries on the complainant as well as his sister for some previous minor scuffle between them.

¶18

Vide order dated 29.9.2010, this Court directed the learned trial Court to send report with regard to compromise in pursuance of which, a report/letter dated 21.10.2010 has been received from the CJM, Bathinda, which is taken on record as Mark-A. It is stated in the report that the complainant has arrived at a compromise with the

¶19

Crl.M.No.13430-M of 2010 #2# accused-petitioner and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶20

Learned state counsel, on instructions from HC Sohan Singh, states that challan has not been presented. He further states that he is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case.

¶21

Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 4 SCC 675, B.S Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶22

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-

¶23

“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

¶24

#3#

¶25

Crl.M.No.13430-M of 2010

¶26

non-compoundable 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.”

¶27

Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T 2008(9) S.C 192

¶28

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another

¶29

while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.

¶30

Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-

¶31

“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 utilised 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.”

¶32

Keeping i n view the above settled legal position and taking

¶33

into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or

¶34

Crl.M.No.13430-M of 2010

¶35

#4#

¶36

rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that 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 the FIR in the interest of justice.

¶37

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.168 dated 3.3.2010 under Sections 452/323/506/341/148/149 IPC, P.S Kotwali, Bathinda and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶38

December 17, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Ravi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

Ravinder Kumar Vs Hseb

Anil Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Anil and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ak Sood Vs Commissioner & Serectariat of Govt of Hry

Piara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ved Parkash Vs State of Punjab and Anr.