Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2010CRM-M/19206/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed two petitions for quashing of an FIR and a cross-version registered on account of a criminal dispute between the parties. The court held that the matter could be safely dealt with by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in view of the settled law that disputes arising from misunderstandings can be resolved amicably by the court.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 132 dated 09.08.2009 and cross version lodged vide DDR No. 16 dated 09.08.2009 along with further proceedings are quashed.

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

¶1

CRM M 19206 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision: 12.10.2010

¶4

1. CRM M 19206 of 2010

¶5

Daljeet Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 19241 of 2010 Ajay Pal singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s)

¶6

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶7

-.-

¶8

Present: Mr. B D Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 19206 of 2010) Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 19241 of 2010)

¶9

Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent- State

¶10

Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 (CRM M 19206 of 2010)

¶11

Mr. B D Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (CRM M 19241 of 2010)

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

CRM M 19206 of 2010 2

¶17

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶18

The present petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No. 132 dated 09.08.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 365, 148, 149 of Indian penal Code read with Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar and cross version lodged vide DDR No. 16 dated -09.08.2009 under Section 326, 452, 427, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code in the aforesaid FIR, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶19

The present FIR was registered on the statement of Ajay Pal Singh (respondent No. 2 in CRM M 19206 of 2010). Thereafter, on the statement of Abhinandan Sharma a cross case was also registered against Ajay Pal Singh, Amardeep Singh and Jaspreet Singh (petitioners in CRM M 19241 of 2010).

¶20

Affidavits of Ajay Pal Singh, Amardeep Singh, Jaspreet Singh, Daljeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Jeewan Singh and Abhinandan Sharma, complainant in the cross case were already taken on record vide order dated 21.09.2010.

¶21

In pursuance to the order dated 21.09.2010, affidavit of Gurcharan Singh is also filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Respondent No. 5 - Gurcharan Singh is also present in Court today. As per these affidavits, with the intervention of the respectables of the area, the matter has been resolved amicably and they have no objections if the FIR as well as cross version is quashed.

¶22

In the present case, some misunderstanding between the parties led to the filing of present FIR as well as cross version against each other.

¶23

CRM M 19206 of 2010 3

¶24

Now, the matter has been resolved amicably vide compromise deed dated 28.05.2010, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P-1.

¶25

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh

¶26

and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-

¶27

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶28

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶29

Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶30

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of

¶31

CRM M 19206 of 2010

¶32

realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶33

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. Both the parties have no objection if the said FIR as well as cross version is quashed.

¶34

Taking into account the allegations and affidavits of both the parties, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the present FIR as well as cross version in view of above settled proposition of law.

¶35

Accordingly, FIR No. 132 dated 09.08.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 365, 148, 149 of Indian penal Code read with Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar and cross version lodged vide DDR No. 16 dated -09.08.2009 under Section 326, 452, 427, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code in the aforesaid FIR and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶36

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶37

Photocopy of the order be also placed on the connected file.

¶38

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶39

12.10.2010 mohan

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daljeet 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

Mukand Singh Gill and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Mohd. Yusuf Itto Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ranjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rishi Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab

Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Munish Sehajpal Vs State of Haryana