Allowed

Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2010CRM-M/22882/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an application seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a compromise between parties in a case involving Sections 354, 448, and 34 IPC. The Court held that continuing proceedings was futile and abused the process of court.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 23 dated 19.4.2010 and all subsequent proceedings under Sections 354/448/34 IPC are quashed.

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

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M- 22882 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.12.2010

¶3

Sunil Kumar and another

¶4

......Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Present: Mr.Puneet Singla, Advocate for Mr.D.K.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Respondent No.4 in person along with her counsel Mr.Viney Puri, Advocate.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 23 dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 354/ 448/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Navi Biradari, Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M- 22882 of 2010 (O&M)

¶17

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

¶18

Respondent No.4, who is present in person along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that she has no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed. Short reply by way of affidavit by respondent No.4 in this regard has been placed on record.

¶19

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.

¶20

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant

¶21

vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC

¶22

192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶23

“23. 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

¶24

Crl.Misc.No.M- 22882 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶25

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 facets. 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

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this 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.”

¶27

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶28

Crl.Misc.No.M- 22882 of 2010 (O&M)

¶29

-4-

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 23 dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 354/ 448/ 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Navi Biradari, Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶31

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶32

December 07, 2010

¶33

anita

Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar & Anr. 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

Pushap Raj Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Pritam Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Dogra Vs Surinder Nath

Angoori Devi Vs State of Punjab