Allowed

Randhir Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2012CRM-M/11285/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 115 for causing hurt and criminal conspiracy, citing a compromise between the parties and the trial court's report confirming the settlement, holding that no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 115 dated 17.05.2006 and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

Randhir Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 11285 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 11285 of 2012 Date of decision: 30.05.2012

¶4

Randhir Kumar and others ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Ashok Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for the respondent – State

¶11

Mr. Parvewsh Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3

¶12

-.-

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 115 dated 17.05.2006 under sections 452, 325, 323, 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Ahobar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 19.03.2012 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

Vide order dated 26.04.2012, the parties were directed to

¶19

CRM No. M 11285 of 2012 2

¶20

appear before the learned Trial Court on 07.05.2012. The trial Court was also directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the compromise and submit its report in that regard on or before the date fixed in this Court.

¶21

In pursuance thereto, now, the JMIC, Abohar has submitted its report stating therein that accused persons gave their statements to the effect that with the intervention of the Panchayat, they have compromised the matter with complainant Saroj Rani and injured Gagandip and also with Rajinder Kumar, father of minor Gagandip. Similarly, complainant as well as father of the minor injured have also given statement that the matter has been compromised. Statements of the parties have been appended with the said report.

¶22

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.

¶23

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:-

¶24

“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

¶25

CRM No. M 11285 of 2012 3

¶26

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

¶28

“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 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 the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court and statements suffered by the parties before the trial Court to the effect that the matter has been compromised, 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. 115 dated 17.05.2006 under sections 452, 325, 323, 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Ahobar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶33

30.05.2012 mohan

Randhir Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gagan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harsh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhvinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Priyanka Verma and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others