A Single Judge quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 324/323/34 IPC based on a valid compromise between parties, relying on inherent powers to prevent abuse of law and secure justice.
FIR No.149 dated 27.11.2011 under Sections 324/323/34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
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
CRM M-10521 of 2012 Date of Decision:18.5.2012
Sukhwinder Singh and another
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Aman Dhri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
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?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.149 dated 27.11.2011 under Sections 324/323/34 IPC Police Station Ahmedgarh District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
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 family. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record to this effect.
The parties except respondent No.4 are present in the Court through their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has placed on record the affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavits, respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that he has also instructions on behalf of respondent No.4 to state that the matter has been compromised and affidavit (Annexure P-5)
-2-
CRM M-10521 of 2012
already placed on record with the present petition is executed by respondent No.4 wherein it is specifically stated that the matter has been compromised and respondent No.4 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
As such there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised.
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:-
“ 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.”
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
“ 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
CRM M-10521 of 2012
-3-
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.”
Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 stating that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed as well as the statement made by learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 on behalf of respondent No.4, 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.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.149 dated 27.11.2011 under Sections 324/323/34 IPC Police Station Ahmedgarh District Sangrur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
18.5.2012 rajeev
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash proceedings arising from an FIR based on a compromise.
Whether Section 320 Cr.P.C. bars quashing of proceedings in non-compoundable offences when a compromise exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶21
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶23
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhwinder Singh and another
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
