Allowed

Rajbir & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2012CRM-M/1040/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed FIR No. 397 dated 16.04.2012 registered against the petitioners due to a compromise between the parties. The Court relied on settled legal propositions regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings upon settlement of personal disputes.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 397 dated 16.04.2012 under Sections 323, 325, 34 and 506 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

Rajbir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 1040 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 1040 of 2012 Date of decision: 22.02.2012

¶4

Rajbir and others ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)

¶6

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶7

-.-

¶8

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

¶9

Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana

¶10

Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶11

-.-

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶14

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶16

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 397 dated 16.04.2012 under Section323, 325, 34, 506 IPC, P S City Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 10.10.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶17

The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel. He filed his affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that aforesaid FIR was got

¶18

CRM No. M 1040 of 2012 2

¶19

registered by him. Now with the intervention of well wishers of both the parties, the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶20

Thus, this Court has no doubt that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

¶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 observed as under:-

¶22

“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 reduced 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 be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶23

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶24

“6. We need to emphasize 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

¶25

CRM No. M 1040 of 2012 3

¶26

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.”

¶27

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties

¶28

without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶29

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 397 dated 16.04.2012 under Section323, 325, 34, 506 IPC, P S City Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

22.02.2012 mohan

Rajbir & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

A.J. Ansari Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Hardep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Satinder Singh @ Babba & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Balwant Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Punjab