Quashed

Prem Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 May 2011CRM-M/11976/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an FIR alleging negligent driving and property damage after receiving a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant. Relying on established principles, the court held that its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allow quashing proceedings in non-compoundable offences if the dispute is resolved amicably to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.147 dated 08.12.2010 and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-11976 of 2011

¶3

Date of decision: 25^th May, 2011

Prem Singh

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. Yatharth Hans, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.147 dated 08.12.2010 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot under Sections 279/337/427 IPC on the basis of a compromise (Annexure P-2) dated 24^th March, 2011.

¶14

In the present case, FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the basis of a statement made by Gurbax Singh-respondent No.2, who stated that he was employed in Food Corporation of India. On 7^th December, 2010 in the Verna car bearing registration No.CH-20-T-0733 (temporary) owned by him the complainant was going from Faridkot to Talwandi Bhai via G.T. Road Amritsar. At about 10.30 p.m. when he reached near J.B. Petrol Pump situated in the area of Tehna, a trailer came at a very high speed without blowing any horn and directly hit the

¶15

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M-11976 of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

dickey of the car. Simple injuries were received by occupant of the car, namely Soni, a minor who is under the care and custody of the complainant-Gurbax Singh as a foster daughter. It is stated that after the above said FIR was investigated, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the accused-petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 427 IPC.

¶18

Counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Jasbir Singh, has stated that they have verified the compromise (Annexure P-2) and it indeed has been arrived at between the parties. HC Jasbir Singh, who has come to assist counsel for the State, has also identified respondent No.2-complainant Gurbax Singh.

¶19

Complainant Gurbax Singh, who is present in Court, has also stated that the dispute has been amicably resolved and he does not intend to pursue the present FIR. It is submitted that in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) be quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

¶20

Counsel for the State has submitted that since the offences are trivial in nature, the State will not stand in the way of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶21

A Full Bench of this Court in ‘Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another’ 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held as under:

¶22

“28. 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 in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely

¶23

¶24

Criminal Misc. No. M-11976 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.

¶26

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.

¶27

30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”

¶28

¶29

Criminal Misc. No. M-11976 of 2011 (O&M)

¶30

In view of the statements made by counsel for the parties, considering the nature of offences and the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra), present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

¶31

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶32

May 25, 2011 rps

Prem Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh 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

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Atul Nibber Vs State of Haryana

Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.