Allowed

Manoj v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2012CRM-M/11228/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding FIR No. 125. The court relied on the filed compromise and complainant's affidavit to quash the FIR under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 125 dated 14.03.2010 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, Police Station Mujessar District Faridabad, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

Manoj Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CRM No. M 11228 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M 11228 of 2012 Date of decision: 24.05.2012

Manoj Mangar

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s)

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

-.-

¶11

Present: Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Amit Kumar, DAG, Haryana

¶13

Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶14

-.-

¶15

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

¶16

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶19

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 125 dated 14.03.2010 under Section 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Mujessar District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 30.09.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.

¶20

Complainant-Surender Tanwar is present in Court along with his counsel. He filed his reply by way of affidavit admitting the contents of

¶21

¶22

CRM No. M 11228 of 2012

¶23

the petition and stated that he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶24

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶25

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:-

¶26

“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.”

¶27

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶28

Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶29

“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 they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful

¶30

CRM No. M 11228 of 2012

¶31

litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶32

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶33

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.

¶34

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 125 dated 14.03.2010 under Section 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Mujessar District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶35

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶37

24.05.2012 mohan

Manoj v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Darshan Pal Toora and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pardeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sant Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Mohinder Kumar etc. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Udit Bhola and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sachin Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.