The High Court quashed an FIR and related proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a post-crime compromise between petitioners and the state, citing harmony and justice, despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Quashing of FIR No.2 dated 2.1.2007 registered under Sections 452/324/326/506/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. M. No.M-21196 of 2010
Date of Decision:13.10.2010
Harpreet Singh @ Pita and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
And
Crl. M. No.M-21210 of 2010 Date of Decision:13.10.2010
Kulwinder Singh and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. M.S. Chauchan, Advocate. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The instant petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.2 dated 2.1.2007 registered under Sections 452/324/326/506/34 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana as well as cross version i.e. DDR No.33 dated 2.1.2007 recorded in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
The brief facts of this case are that a clash took place between the parties for which both the parties sustained injuries and FIR in question as well as cross case was registered.
However, the matter has since been compromised. Compromise deeds have been placed on record as Annexure P-3 in both the petitions. Today, the parties are present in the Court alongwith their
-2-
Crl. M. No.M-21196 of 2010
respective counsel to substantiate the compromise.
Affidavits of respondent No.2-complainant as well as injured persons namely Davinder Singh son of Kuldeep Singh and Jatinder Pal Singh son of Gurdev Singh in Crl. M. No.M-21196 of 2010 and respondent No.2-complainant as well as injured person namely Kulwinder Singh @ Sonu son of Chamkaur Singh in Crl. M. No.M-21210 of 2010 are also placed on authenticating the compromise stating that the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the respectables of the village and the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of their own sweet will. They have no objection, if the FIR in question as well as cross case are quashed. A separate statement of Jaswinder Kumar @ Sonu son of Harbans Lal, who is also an injured person in the FIR case, is also recorded to the same effect.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-
“ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory 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 noncompoundable 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.”
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008
(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
“ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is
Crl. M. No.M-21196 of 2010 -3-
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 realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
In view of the settled proposition of law and in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. The compromise is entered into without any pressure. The parties are co-villagers.
Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed and FIR No.2 dated 2.1.2007 registered under Sections 452/324/326/506/34 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana as well as cross version i.e. DDR No.33 dated 2.1.2007 recorded in the aforesaid FIR subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.
A photo copy of this order be placed on the connected case.
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
13.10.2010 rajeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allow quashing of criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable offence upon a valid compromise between parties.
Whether the compromise entered into without pressure and out of free will warrants the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶30
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabFollowed¶32
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harpreet Singh @ Pita and others
Kulwinder Singh and others
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
