The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings for voluntary culpable hurt and assault, noting that parties had arrived at a compromise.
FIR No. 244 dated 4.11.2006 under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC and subsequent proceedings were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-13708 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 13, 2010
Jagtar Singh and others
...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Rahul Vats Advocate for Mr.Vaneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Deepak Aggarwal,Advocate for respondent No.2 **
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 244 dated 4.11.2006 under Sections 326, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13708 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has filed his reply by way of affidavit,as per which,she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
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.
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:-
“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
Crl. Misc. No. M-13708 of 2010 (O&M) -3-
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?
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.”
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.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 244 dated 4.11.2006 under Sections 326,324,34 IPC registered at Police Station Jandiala Guru as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .
( Sabina ) Judge
July 13, 2009
arya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings upon a post-crime compromise.
Whether the continuance of criminal proceedings after a compromise would serve any useful purpose.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶14
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherExplained¶15
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 · Who else cites this
B.S.Joshi's caseRelied on¶20
B.S.Joshi's case
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagtar Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
