Allowed

Taj Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2010CRM-M/16617/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR involving sections 324, 323, and 34 IPC. The court held that since the parties had reached a compromise and agreed to live in peace, continuing the criminal proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 12 dated 29.4.2010 under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 16617 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 16617 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2010

Taj Singh and others

........Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate for Mr. APS Srawaan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr. Vivek S. Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

Respondent No.2 in person.

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.12 dated 29.4.2010, under Sections 324,323,34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Section 326 IPC added lateron), Police Station Arniwala, District Ferozepur and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and friends.

¶19

Respondent No.2, who is present in person in the Court along

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M- 16617 of 2010 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Respondent No.2 has also tendered his affidavit as per which he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 :-

¶25

“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?

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M- 16617 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove 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.”

¶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 criminal proceedings to continue.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.12 dated 29.4.2010, under Sections 324,323,34 of IPC (Section 326 IPC added lateron), Police Station Arniwala, District Ferozepur and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶31

August 24, 2010 Anand

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

Taj Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Jot Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sawinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Saroj Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manu Sareen and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Satwinder Singh @ Ghugga Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Sharma Vs C B I