Allowed

Rajbir Punia and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2010CRM-M/14505/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR involving offences under IPC and Arms Act. The quashing was granted based on a compromise between parties, citing that continued proceedings would serve no useful purpose despite the non-compoundable nature of some charges.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.61 dated 28.1.2010 and consequent proceedings under Sections 148/149/307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 are quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 14505 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 14505 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 7, 2010

¶5

Rajbir Punia and another

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.61, dated 28.1.2010, under Sections 148/149/307 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station City Hansi, District- Hissar and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case petitioners were not named in the FIR. Nobody has suffered any injury in this case. Now the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the respectables.

¶17

Respondents No.2 & 3, who are present in person in the Court along with their Counsel, have admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. They have also admitted the contents of their affidavits

¶18

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 14505 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

(Annexures P-2 and P-3) as per which they have no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.26 and 24 has held as under :-

¶23

“26. 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 facts. 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

¶25

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M- 14505 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

and keeping in mind the decision of the 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 allowing these criminal proceedings to continue.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.61 dated 28.1.2010, under Sections 148/149/307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station City Hansi, District- Hissar and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶30

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶31

July 7, 2010 Anand

Rajbir Punia and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir Punia and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Kulwant Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh @ Lali Vs State of Punjab

Gurdial Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bhavesh Rajai Vs Amit Kalra

Chander Shekhar Vs Madhu Sharma

Brijender Vs State of Haryana and Anr.