Single Judge allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings regarding a village dispute over entering a bus, citing a valid compromise between parties to promote social harmony.
FIR No.964 dated 10.09.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-2677 of 2010 Date of Decision:23.3.2010
Ajay Kumar
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Virk, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. A.K. Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.964 dated 10.09.2009 registered under Sections 332,186,353,333 IPC at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
The FIR in question was registered by respondent No.2, who is conductor of State Transport Haryana against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner tried to enter the bus from the front door and there was scuffle between the petitioner and respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised in the presence of the respectable of the village without any pressure. An affidavit of respondent No.2 has also been placed on record as Annexure P-2 to the same effect. As per the affidavit, respondent No.2 does not wish to take any action against the petitioner. A separate statement of respondent No.2 to that effect has also been recorded in the Court today. As per the statement, respondent No.2 has no objection
CRM M-2677 of 2010
-2-
if the FIR in question is quashed.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. 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:-
“ 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.”
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008
(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
“ 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
CRM M-2677 of 2010 -3-
litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
The dispute is personal in nature. The matter has been compromised in the presence of the respectable of the village. In view of the settled proposition of law and taking into account the affidavit of respondent No.2 as well as the statement before this Court authenticating the compromise, 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 FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.964 dated 10.09.2009 registered under Sections 332,186,353,333 IPC at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.
23.3.2010 rajeev
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash FIRs in non-compoundable offences under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a genuine compromise.
Whether a compromise in a personal nature dispute justifies quashing criminal proceedings to promote peace and harmony.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherApplied¶20
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶23
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Kumar
State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
