Allowed

Satinder Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2010CRM-M/26648/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered for cheating and forgery offences. The Court accepted that a valid compromise between the parties, affirming by an affidavit, warranted the exercise of inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's petition was allowed and FIR No.204 dated 03.08.2010 under Sections 406/420/467/461/471 IPC was quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-26648 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-26648 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.12.2010

¶5

Satinder Kaur & another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶11

Present:Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Munish Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶18

¶19

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶20

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.204 dated 03.08.2010 under Sections 406/420/467/461/471 IPC registered at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶21

The FIR was registered against the present petitioners by Harpreet Singh Rekhi, attorney holder of Gobinder Pal Rekhi-respondent No.2. Due to the intervention of the respectable of both the parties, Harpreet Singh Rekhi, attorney holder of Gobinder Pal Rekhi s/o Swaran Singh Rekhi, respondent No.2 has entered into a compromise with the petitioners vide compromise dated 03.09.2010. Harpreet Singh

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-26648 of 2010

¶23

¶24

Rekhi son of Swaran Singh, attorney holder of Gobinder Pal Rekhi is present in the Court. As per the compromise, the petitioners had agreed not to claim any ownership/possession over the assets of M/s Dhillon Hotel Private Limited and also to withdraw the civil suit filed by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.2. Further, the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the above mentioned FIR against the present petitioners. An affidavit of Harpreet Singh, attorney holder of Gobinder Pal Rekhi was also executed affirming the factum of compromise and the same is placed on record. It is duly stated by him that the matter has been compromised and he has no objection, if the said FIR is quashed. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has also been filed in the Court today. The same is taken on record. The matter having been compromised, it is 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.

¶25

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-26648 of 2010

¶28

¶29

of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶30

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under :-

¶31

“ 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 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

The matter has been compromised. In view of the settled position of law, it is a fit case where the Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR.

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.204 dated 03.08.2010 under Sections 406/420/467/461/471 IPC registered at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala is hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

¶34

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶35

16.12.2010 gurpreet

Satinder Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satinder Kaur & Anr. 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

Gurbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Judge Vohra Vs State of Punjab

Sukhwinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Subhash Vs Birbal and Ors.

Surinder M. Khandhar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.