Allowed

Inder Alias Mama v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2012CRM-M/12038/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under sections 406 and 407 IPC citing a settlement. The court upheld inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences if the compromise is fair, just, and free from undue pressure to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 198 dated 13.12.2011 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Inder Alias Mama Vs State of Punjab and Others — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-12038 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M- 12038 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 3^rd , 2012

Inder alias Mama

.... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. J.S.Brar, A. A.G. Punjab for the State.

¶14

Mr. N.C.Doabia, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Inder alias Mama, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 198 dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station E Division, Amritsar for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 407 of Indian Penal Code alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶17

On notice of the petition, besides State counsel, Sanjiv Kumar, respondent No. 2 alongwith Mr. N.C.Doabia, Advocate has appeared

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-12038 of 2012

¶19

¶20

before me. The person appearing in the name of Sanjiv Kumar has been identified as complainant of this case by Baldev Singh, SI Police Station, Kotwali, District Amritsar. He drew my attention to the compromise, Annexure P2 and affirmed that the parties have compromised the matter.

¶21

Compromise brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute and restores tranquility in the society. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations as the prime concern of law, it was held in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 by this court that even if a matrimonial offence is non compoundable, a case regarding the same could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties to achieve the aforesaid object. However, on a similar question having come up for decision regarding other noncompoundable offences, a Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , has taken the following view:-

¶22

“29. 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.”

¶23

Therefore, the quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable offences is not limited to matrimonial disputes and the FIR for the offence in question could also be quashed. However, before accepting the

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-12038 of 2012

¶25

¶26

petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is free from undue pressure. Once the court is satisfied on these points, then it has to see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or that it would prevent abuse of process of law.

¶27

On questioning respondent No. 2, he has stated that his claim has been satisfied and he is left with no grievance. The compromise can certainly be said to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears to the court to be suggestive of any pressure, much less undue pressure on the complainant for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be derived by any party in the matter of compromise.

¶28

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the offence being personal in nature, I accept the petition and quash FIR No. 198 dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station E Division, Amritsar for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 407 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

¶29

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶30

August 3^rd , 2012 som

Inder Alias Mama v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inder Alias Mama v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.

Dharam Singh & Anor. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

N.K. Mehta Vs CBI

Shiv Kumar Grover and Anr. Vs State of Punjab