High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise between the parties, relying on settled law regarding inherent powers even in non-compoundable offences.
FIR No.154 dated 15.6.2003 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were 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.
CRM No.6762 of 2010 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .
Criminal Misc. No.M6762 of 2010
Date of Decision:-06th JULY, 2010
Harjinder Singh & Ors. .......Petitioners. vs State of Punjab & Anr. .........Respondents. AND Criminal Misc. No.M-26733 of 2009 Date of Decision:-06th JULY, 2010 Rashpal Singh. .......Petitioner. vs State of Punjab & Anr. .........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for Respondent no.1-State. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for Respondent no.2-Complainant.
CRM No.6762 of 2010 #2#
JASWANT SINGH, J.
This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid miscellaneous applications which emerged out of common FIR No.154 dated 15.6.2003 under sections 323, 326, 307, 452, 148, 149 IPC P.S. Chehrata, District Amritsar.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.26733 of 2009 has been instuted by Rashpal Singh praying for quashing of the cross version whereas the Criminal Miscellaneous application no.M 6762 of 2010 has been preferred by his two other brothers Harjinder Singh and Manjinder Pal Singh and Iqbal Kaur wife of Harjinder Singh and Baby wife of Rashpal Singh praying for quashing of the aforementioned FIR lodged on the statement of their father Darshan Singh-respondent no.2.
Complainant Darshan Singh is present in the court and has been identified by his counsel Sh. Sandeep Kumar Advocate. He states that the matter between him and his family members has been amicably settled in terms of the compromise(Annexure P-2). He further owns the contents of the affidavit filed by him dated 13.8.2009(Annexure P- 2). He further states that he has no objection if the aforementioned FIR and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.
Learned State counsel very fairly points out that the investigating agency after investigation had deleted the offences under sections 307 IPC and 452 IPC and that rest of the offences are compoundable.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v.
CRM No.6762 of 2010 #3#
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 noncompoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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 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.”
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:-
“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.”
Keeping In view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and
CRM No.6762 of 2010 #4#
harmony and carry on with their lives 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.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.154 dated 15.6.2003 under sections 323, 326, 307, 452, 148, 149 IPC P.S. Chehrata, District Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
06.7.2010. (JASWANT SINGH) Vinay JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash an FIR disclosing noncompoundable offences where a compromise has been reached.
Whether the settlement between the parties justifies quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶15
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶17
Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harjinder Singh & Ors.
State of Punjab & Anr.
Rashpal Singh
State of Punjab & Anr.
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
