Allowed

Kunal Bhasin and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Apr 2012CRM-M/10249/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, and 506 IPC read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on a valid compromise deed between the petitioner and the Respondents, affirming that Section 482 powers extend beyond matrimonial cases to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.199 dated 9.9.2009 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Kunal Bhasin and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-10249 of 2010 Date of Decision:16.4.2012

¶3

Kunal Bhasin and another

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G. Haryana. Respondent No.2 is present in person.

¶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.199 dated 9.9.2009 under Sections 406,498-A,323,506 IPC Police Station Baldev Nagar Ambala City 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

Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified

¶16

by learned counsel for the petitioners. An affidavit of respondent No.2 has also been placed on record admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 and

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRM M-10249 of 2010

¶19

petitioner No.1 are residing together alongwith their children namely Mayank whose date of birth is 8.6.2008 and female child namely Noor whose date of birth is 18.1.2012. Daughter Noor was born during the pendency of the present petition. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶20

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:-

¶21

“ 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.”

¶22

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as

¶23

under:-

¶24

CRM M-10249 of 2010 -3-

¶25

“ 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.”

¶26

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, 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 FIR in the interest of justice.

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.199 dated 9.9.2009 under Sections 406,498-A,323,506 IPC Police Station Baldev Nagar Ambala City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶28

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶29

16.4.2012 rajeev

Kunal Bhasin and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Bhasin and Anr. v. State of Haryana 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

Jograj Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Arun Nagar Vs State of Haryana

Pankaj Threja Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Manjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab etc.

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab