Allowed

Aman & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2010CRM-M/23092/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes two criminal petitions arising from the same FIR involving offences under IPC and the Arms Act. The High Court allowed the quashing due to a compromise between the parties, relying on Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents that permit quashing non-compoundable offences to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 147 dated 31.5.2010 and consequent proceedings registered under Sections 452/323/148/149/336 IPC and Section 25, 27 Arms Act, 1959 were quashed.

Aman & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 23092 of 2010 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M- 34134 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-23092 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 9, 2010

Aman and others

........Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ........Respondents

¶9

And

¶10

Crl. Misc. No. M- 34134 of 2010 (O&M)

¶11

Maana Ram and another ........Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Punjab and others ........Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶16

Present : Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶17

Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Senior Addl. A.G. Punjab with Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶18

Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & injured.

¶19

Respondent No.2 and injured in person.

¶20

SABINA, J.

¶21

Vide this order both the above mentioned petitions would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same FIR.

¶22

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.147 dated 31.5.2010, under Sections 452/323/148/149/336 of Indian Penal Code and 25, 27 of the Arms

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M- 23092 of 2010 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M- 34134 of 2010 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act'), registered at Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶26

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

¶27

Respondent No.2 Sonu and injured Sunil, who are present in person along with their counsel, have admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and have stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Their affidavits in this regard have been placed on record.

¶28

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.

¶29

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos.26 and 24 has held as under :-

¶30

“26. 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 Company. What,

¶31

Crl. Misc. No. M- 23092 of 2010 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M- 34134 of 2010 (O&M)

¶32

¶33

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 facts. 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?

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The FIR No.147 dated 31.5.2010, under Sections 452/323/148/149/336 IPC and 25, 27 of the Act, registered at Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom are quashed.

¶37

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶38

December 9, 2010 Anand

Aman & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman & 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

Ramanjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kapil Dev Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mahant Tarsem Chand Vs State of Punjab

Maana Ram and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab