Allowed

Harbhajan Singh @ Midha @ Chhinda & Another v. State of Punjab & Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2010CRM-M/26494/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cramped M.C. No. 26494-M of 2010 quashed FIR No. 5 dated 9.1.2008 under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC. The petitioners, accused of assaulting the complainant with a kirpan and datar, submitted a compromise affidavit. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing of non-compoundable FIRs in the interest of justice where parties seek peace.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 5 dated 9.1.2008 under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Harbhajan Singh @ Midha @ Chhinda & Another Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

#1#

¶2

Crl.M.No.26494-M of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.M.No.26494-M of 2010

¶5

Date of Order: 2.11.2010

¶6

Harbhajan Singh and Another

¶7

……Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and Others

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶15

Prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of FIR No.5 dated 9.1.2008, under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC, P.S Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 25.8.2010 (P.2).

¶16

As per allegations in the FIR, while the complainant reached his house, where his son standing, petitioner No.1 armed with kirpan and petitioner No.2 armed with datar came out of their house and inflicted injuries on the complainant.

¶17

Vide order dated 10.9.2010, this Court directed the learned trial Court to send report with regard to compromise in pursuance of which, a report/letter dated 14.10.2010 has been received from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, which is taken on record as Mark-A.

¶18

#2#

¶19

Crl.M.No.26494-M of 2010

¶20

It is stated in the report that the complainant has arrived at a compromise with the accused-petitioners and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶21

Learned state counsel, on instructions from HC Jagdish Singh, states that challan has been presented in this case and one prosecution witness has been examined. He further states that he is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case.

¶22

A full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v.

¶23

State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relvant extracts read as under:

¶24

“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.”

¶25

Similar views were expressed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:

¶26

“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 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 utilized in

¶27

#3#

¶28

Crl.M.No.26494-M of 2010

¶29

deciding more effective meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶30

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into

¶31

account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that 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 the FIR in the interest of justice.

¶32

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.5 dated 9.1.2008, under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC, P.S Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶33

November 02, 2010 Manoj

¶34

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

Harbhajan Singh @ Midha @ Chhinda & Another v. State of Punjab & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan Singh @ Midha @ Chhinda & Another v. State of Punjab & Others

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

Tarlok Singh Vs Randhir Chlotra & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Heera Lal

Subhash Vs Uhbvnl & Ors.

Northern Regional Committee Nation Council Vs Rksd College of Education,Ambala Road Kaithal

Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.