Allowed

Avinash Aggarwal v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2011CRM-M/11576/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for assault and criminal intimidation. Relying on a larger bench precedent, the court held that even for non-compoundable offences, quashing is permissible if the compromise is voluntary and secures the ends of justice. The court found no pressure or undue advantage.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing FIR No. 56 dated 8.2.2011 for offences under sections 323, 341, 326, 506 IPC read with section 34 IPC and subsequent proceedings is allowed.

Avinash Aggarwal Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-11576 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-11576 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 23^rd , 2012

Avinash Aggarwal

.... Petitioner

Versus

U.T. Chandigarh and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. PP UT Chandigarh, for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. S.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Avinash Aggarwal has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 56 dated 8.2.2011 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh for an offence punishable under sections 323, 341, 326, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of compromise.

¶17

It is a case of assault by the petitioner Avinash Aggarwal and his companions on Thakur Chauhan alias Painter and Sanjay, who are arrayed in this petition as respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-11576 of 2011

¶19

¶20

The compromise deed is placed on the file in original. The complainant, Thakur Chauhan alias Painter and the injured Sanjay have come present in the court. They are represented before me by Mr. S.S.Sodhi, Advocate. They have affirmed the fact that the matter stands compromised between the parties. They have also stated that the compromise has been brought about without any pressure upon them.

¶21

It is a case where the offence punishable under sections 506 and 326 IPC are non-compoundable. Before the matter was finally decided by a Larger Bench of five Honble Judges of this court in **Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another** **_2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052_** quashing on the basis of compromise in noncompoundable offences was being allowed in the matters relating to matrimonial disputes. The question as to whether the quashing of the FIR could be ordered on the basis of compromise for other noncompoundable offences was considered by the Larger Bench of five Honble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) and it has been held as under:-

¶22

“29. 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.”

¶23

Crl. Misc. No.M-11576 of 2011

¶24

¶25

Despite the fact that the question as to whether the FIR in non-compoundable offence other than the matrimonial offence could be quashed has been finally settled, the court is still to see that the compromise is not a result of any threat or pressure brought on the complainant/injured and that the accused has not taken undue advantage in the matter of compromise. The court is also to be satisfied that the compromise is for securing the ends of justice.

¶26

I have questioned the complainant and the injured and I find that there is no undue advantage taken by the petitioner in the compromise and that the compromise has not been brought about by any pressure upon the complainant and the injured. The offence is against two individuals, who are satisfied with the compromise and quashing of the proceedings would bring about the desired harmony between the two sides and this would prove that the ends of justice would be achieved by allowing the petition.

¶27

In these circumstances, the petition for quashing FIR No. 56 dated 8.2.2011 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh for an offence punishable under sections 323, 341, 326, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is allowed.

¶28

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶29

February 23rd, 2012 som

Avinash Aggarwal v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Aggarwal v. Ut of Chandigarh 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

Adviser to the Admn. Cum Chief Vigilance Officer Vs D.C. Cum District Collector & Anr.

Shifali Kaul Vs Guru Nanak Dev University

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

Mohinder Puri Vs P.O., Labour Court and Others

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.