Allowed

Raj Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2010CRM-M/22596/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed the petitioner's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings. The Court held that the inherent power under Section 482 extends to non-matrimonial cases where a valid compromise is entered, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.129 dated 26.6.2010 under Sections 324/323/148/149 IPC, Arms Act sections, and Section 326 IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, are quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-22596 of 2010 Date of Decision:5.10.2010

Raj Singh and others

.... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab.

¶10

Mr. Tejvir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶11

¶12

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.129 dated 26.6.2010 under Sections 324/323/148/149 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act and later on Section 326 IPC was added Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶17

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners on the allegations of beatings. However, the matter has been compromised.

¶18

Today i.e. 5.10.2010, the parties are present in person through their respective counsel.

¶19

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the

¶20

CRM M-22596 of 2010

¶21

-2-

¶22

compromise. As per the affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into with the intervention of the respectable of the area.

¶23

No doubt Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act is added but no weapon/rifle was used to fire so as to hit any one.

¶24

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

¶25

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:-

¶26

“ 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.”

¶27

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008

¶28

(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶29

“ We need to emphasise 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

¶30

CRM M-22596 of 2010 -3-

¶31

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.”

¶32

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed, 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 FIR in the interest of justice.

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.129 dated 26.6.2010 under Sections 324/323/148/149 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act and later on Section 326 IPC was added Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶34

5.10.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE

Raj Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Singh 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

Beena and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Manpreet Singh @ Joban Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana

Matloob Khan Vs S.B.A. Zaidi and Ors.

Teja Singh and Ors. Vs Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority Ludhiana

Dalbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.