Allowed

Uday Bhan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2010CRM-M/28082/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and conviction order arising from a non-compoundable Section 326 IPC. Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that inherent powers enable compounding and quashing when a genuine compromise exists, fostering social harmony.

What did the court decide?

Present petition allowed; parties allowed to compound offence; directed to appear before Appellate Court to pass orders.

Uday Bhan Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-28082 of 2009 Date of Decision:23.3.2010

Uday Bhan

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Virk, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. H.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.161 dated 10.05.1998 registered under Sections 323,324,326,34 IPC at Police Station Bhattu Kalan as well as conviction order dated 23.3.2007/24/3/2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

Facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 namely Rajender son of Sh. Ami Lal, resident of village Manawali, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, on the allegations of causing injuries to the respondent No.2, following which FIR No.161 dated 10.5.1998 under Sections 323,324,326,4 IPC at Police Station Bhattu Kalan was registered against the petitioner. Vide order dated 23/24.03.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, the petitioner was held guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal

¶17

CRM M-28082 of 2009 -2-

¶18

challenging the said order in the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. The said appeal is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, due to intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. Moreover, in view of the compromise, the complainant also moved an application for quashing of FIR before the Appellate Court. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that offence under Section 326 IPC is non compoundable. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

¶19

The matter has been compromised. The said compromise was entered into with the intervention of the friends, relatives and other members of the Panchayat. The dispute was amicably settled. An affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant has also been placed on record to the same effect. As per the affidavit, respondent No.2-complainant does not wish to pursue the case. A separate statement of respondent No.2-complainant has also been recorded in the Court today authenticating the compromise. As per the said statement, respondent No.2-complainant has no objection if the FIR in question and conviction order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the said charges.

¶20

The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminl) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the

¶21

CRM M-28082 of 2009

¶22

-3-

¶23

High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction.

¶24

This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjan and another, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. And another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal.

¶25

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:-

¶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 non-compoundable 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.”

¶27

In view of the settled proposition of law and taking into

¶28

CRM M-28082 of 2009 -4-

¶29

account the matter has been compromised with the intervention of respectable of the village, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony.

¶30

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as compromise effected between the parties, parties are allowed to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission granted by this

¶31

Court to the parties to compound the offence.

¶32

Accordingly the present petition is allowed.

¶33

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶34

23.3.2010 rajeev

Uday Bhan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Bhan v. State of Haryana and 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

Balkaran Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shiv Singh Virdi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Satpal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.