Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2010CRM-M/23272/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR based on a compromise with his mother. The single judge invoked Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, citing precedent that the power extends beyond matrimonial disputes when justice demands termination of criminal process after settlement.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.58 dated 5.4.2001 and all consequent proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner and other co-accused.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 23272 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 23272 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2010

Suresh Kumar

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & another

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

Respondent No.2 & petitioner in person.

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.58 dated 5.4.2001, under Sections 452,506,380,323,148,149 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station City, District Mansa and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the son of respondent No.2. Now the parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of relatives and friends.

¶19

Respondent No.2, who is present in person in the Court along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M- 23272 of 2010 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

parties and has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioner as well as the other co-accused as the main accused in this case was the petitioner, who is none other than her son. In reply filed by respondent No.2 by way of affidavit. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 :-

¶25

“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, 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

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M- 23272 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

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?

¶29

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.”

¶30

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

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.58 dated 5.4.2001, under Sections 452,506,380,323,148,149 of IPC, registered at Police Station City, District Mansa and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner and other co-accused.

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶33

September 20, 2010 Anand

Suresh Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State of Punjab & 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

Rita Rani Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajesh Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

(O&M) Kulwant Singh & Another Vs Sarabjit Singh

Raghbir & Others Vs State of Haryana

Akil Vs State of Haryana