A petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR based on settlement was dismissed. The single judge held that although compromise is vital, Section 304-A IPC falls in the category of offences against public order and morality requiring caution, warranting no interference.
Petition for quashing of FIR No.100 dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-15372 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.7.2011
Baljeet Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present: Mr.Divya Vishavjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No.100 dated 26.9.2007 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana.
The solitary plea that has been raised in support of the prayer that has been made in the petition is that the petitioner, who stands accused of the aforesaid offences has settled the matter and compromised with respondents No.2 and 3. Reliance has been placed on B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR Criminal 888 SC and Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 2225 . There is no doubt that this
Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) observed as follows :-
Crl.Misc.No.M-15372 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
“The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by disorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of the justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. 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 is truly 'finest hour of justice'. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can be safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its power 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.”
Crl.Misc.No.M-15372 of 2011 (O&M) -3-
Even though the power is wide enough, yet the Court has to be circumspect while exercising such power. The cases which are against public order, public morality invoke public outrage, and shock the conscience of the society cannot be permitted to be compounded. Section 304A IPC falls in this category.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
25.7.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
dss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash the FIR despite a settlement between the accused and respondents.
Whether Section 304-A IPC, being a non-compoundable offence, precludes the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Joshi v. State of HaryanaReferred¶13
B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR Criminal 888 SC
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶13
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 2225
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Baljeet Singh
State of Punjab
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
