Allowed

Ravi Krishan Biala and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2010CRM-M/20424/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge held that an FIR under non-compoundable offences could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after a full compromise between parties. Citing settled precedent, the Court found continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.75 dated 30.6.2010 under Sections 353/186/506/148/149 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Ravi Krishan Biala and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

#1#

¶2

Crl.M.No.20424-M of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

¶4

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Crl.M.No.20424-M of 2010

¶6

Date of Order: 17.9.2010

¶7

Dr. Ravi Krishan Biala and others

¶8

.....Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Punjab and another

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶13

Present: Mr. B.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

¶15

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶16

Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of FIR No.75 dated 30.6.2010 under Sections 353/186/506/148/149 IPC, P.S Chabhal District Tarn Taran on the basis of compromise (P.2).

¶17

As per the allegations in the FIR, on 30.6.2010 at about 9.30 a.m, petitioners suddenly came to the complainant and without talking with him they started abusing and quarreling with him and that they threw the headgear of the complainant.

¶18

While issuing notice of motion, this Court on 19.7.2010, had directed the parties to appear before ld. CJM, Tarn Taran to get their statements recorded. As per report of the ld. CJM, Tarn Taran, statements of the parties have been recorded and that the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioners.

¶19

Learned state counsel can possibly have no objection to

¶20

#2#

¶21

Crl.M.No.20424-M of 2010

¶22

quashing of FIR as the parties have compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings.

¶23

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and

¶24

others v. State of Punjab and another , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-

¶25

“The only inevitable conclusion from the

¶26

above discussion is that there is no statutory

¶27

bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶28

Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in

¶29

Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-

¶30

“We need to emphasise that it is perhaps

¶31

advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the

¶32

Crl.M.No.20424-M of 2010 #3#

¶33

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 realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶34

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

¶35

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.75 dated 30.6.2010 under Sections 353/186/506/148/149 IPC, P.S Chabhal District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶36

September 17, 2010 manoj

¶37

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

Ravi Krishan Biala and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Krishan Biala and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

Gurdeep Singh Vs Mengha Singh

Sudarshan Katyal Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Mengal Singh and Another Vs M/S Kundan Lal and Another

Tansukh Vs Tara Chand

Jagir Singh Vs Surinder Mohan

Jasbir Kaur Vs Bakshish Singh and Ors.