Allowed

Harmander Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2010CRM-M/15091/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR No. 198 and subsequent proceedings under various IPC sections. The petition was based on a compromise reached between the petitioner and the respondents, intended to secure the ends of justice by ending futile civil disputes with criminal overtones. The Court held that continuing the case post-compromise served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 198 dated 4.12.2009 registered at Police Station City Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Harmander Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15091 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.9.2010

¶3

Harmander Singh and others

¶4

......Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

¶11

The complainant in person along with her counsel Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 198 dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 452/ 324/ 450/ 326/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station City Moga and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15091 of 2010

¶17

-2-

¶18

parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area.

¶19

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court in person along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has tendered her affidavit, as per which she does not want to take any further action in this case.

¶20

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

¶21

(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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

“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

¶26

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15091 of 2010 -3-

¶27

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?

¶28

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.”

¶29

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

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 198

¶31

Crl.Misc.No.M- 15091 of 2010 (O&M) -4-

¶32

dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 452/ 324/ 450/ 326/ 34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Moga and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶33

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶34

September 14, 2010 anita

Harmander Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmander Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Pardeep Jain Vs Jagdish Jain and Ors.

Yayavaram Nageshwar Parsad Vs State of Haryana

Bhupinder Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Puran Chand and Ors. Vs Ut, Chd. and Anr.

Jagbir Singh Alias Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab