Allowed

Abdul Rehman and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2010CRM-M/13536/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings. Relying on a compromise between parties in a matrimonial dispute and Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 168 dated 4.8.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Abdul Rehman and Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M-13536 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2010

¶3

Abdul Rehman and another

¶4

......Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.Mohd.Salim, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G.Punjab.

¶11

Respondents No.2 and 3 are present in person along with their counsel Mr.Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 168 dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 498-A/ 406/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station City Malerkotla District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M-13536 of 2010 (O&M)

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area. Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 has since been dissolved.

¶18

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are present in Court in person along with their counsel, have admitted the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2) and also the contents of their affidavits available on record, as per which they have no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

¶19

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR

¶20

(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.

¶21

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant

¶22

vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC

¶23

192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶24

“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

¶25

Crl.Misc.No.M-13536 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶26

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 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?

¶27

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 exercise.”

¶28

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in

¶29

Crl.Misc.No.M-13536 of 2010 (O&M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

allowing these proceedings to continue.

¶32

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 168 dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 498-A/ 406/ 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City Malerkotla District Sangrur, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶33

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶34

August 27, 2010 anita

Abdul Rehman and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman and Anr. 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

M/S Verma Tractors and Ors. Vs M/S Hmt Limited

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nitika Bhau and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Paramjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Juber Vs State of Haryana

Sachin Vs State of Punjab