Allowed

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 May 2011CRM-M/12960/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an FIR under Sections 279 and 337 IPC arising from a minor traffic accident causing simple injuries. Relying on Kulwinder Singh, the court held the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. justified quashing due to a valid compromise between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR No. 42 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-12960 of 2011

¶3

Date of decision: 25^th May, 2011

Darshan Singh

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

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

¶11

Mr. D.S. Virk, 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.42 dated 26.01.2009 registered at Police Station Phase 1, SAS Nagar, Mohali under Sections 279 and 337 IPC on the basis of a compromise (Annexure P-4) dated 30^th January, 2009.

¶14

In the present case, FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the basis of a statement made by Deepa Sikka minor daughter of Jatinder Kumar Sikka-respondent No.2. The complainant stated that on 27^th January, 2011 at about 2.15 p.m. she was returning from her school on her bicycle. When she was about to take a turn on her right side, Jatinder Singh son of the petitioner who is also a minor and a co-student of the complainant, had hit her bicycle with his scooter make LML bearing registration No.HR-03 C-7258, due to which she suffered injuries on various parts of her body.

¶15

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M-12960 of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that simple injuries were suffered by complainant Deepa Sikka and the maximum sentence which can be awarded under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is six months. It is further submitted that the accused Jatinder Singh is also a juvenile. It is urged before me that the parents of the complainant and the accused have decided to resolve the dispute amicably as the accused and the complainant are studying in the same school.

¶18

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Phool Chand, Police Station Mataur, District Mohali has stated that they have verified the compromise (Annexure P-4) and it indeed has been arrived at between the parties. ASI Phool Chand, who has come to assist counsel for the State, has also identified respondent No.2-Jatinder Sikka, father of the complainant.

¶19

Jatinder Sikka, father of the complainant, 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-4) 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

¶23

¶24

Criminal Misc. No. M-12960 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

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 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

¶28

¶29

Criminal Misc. No. M-12960 of 2011 (O&M)

¶30

compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”

¶31

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.

¶32

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶33

May 25, 2011 rps

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Atul Nibber Vs State of Haryana

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