Allowed

Manohar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2012CRM-M/10042/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings arising from cheating and forgery offences. The court held that a bona fide compromise between parties justified quashing the complaint in the interest of justice, even if the offences were technically non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.73 dated 5.7.2010 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Manohar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-10042 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.4.2012

Manohar Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Lalit Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.73 dated 5.7.2010 registered under Sections 167/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶14

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record to this effect.

¶15

Vide order dated 4.4.2011, notice of motion was issued and the Illaqa Magistrate was directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRM M-10042 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

manner and send its report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶19

In pursuance to the same, report of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridkot has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties have been recorded. It is further submitted that the Court is satisfied that the parties have reached upon a compromise voluntarily.

¶20

Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised.

¶21

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-

¶22

“ 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 thewide 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

¶23

CRM M-10042 of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶26

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab

¶27

2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶28

“ 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.”

¶29

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, 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 complaint in the interest of justice.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.73 dated 5.7.2010 registered under Sections 167/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶31

26.4.2012 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE

Manohar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar 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

Gurpreet Singh @ Raju Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Swaran Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jameshpal and Another Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Neha Puri and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prabhu Dayal Chawla and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Vinay Sood Vs State of Punjab & Anr.