Allowed

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2012CRM-M/12149/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the basis of a valid compromise dated 29.03.2012 regarding offences punishable under Sections 279 and 427 IPC, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, discharging the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.138 dated 13.05.2011 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed, and the petitioner was discharged.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-12149 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-12149 of 2012 Date of Decision:July 19, 2012

¶5

Ranjit Singh .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.H.S.Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶11

Mr.Kapil Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶14

The affidavit of Kamal Kumar(respondent No.2) today filed in the Court, is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant petition and emitting from the record is that, in the wake of complaint of complainantKamal Kumar son of Vui Lal, respondent No.2(for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.138 dated 13.05.2011(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 427 IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

¶16

During the course of investigation of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes by way of compromise dated 29.03.2012(Annexure P-2).

¶17

¶18

CRM No.M-12149 of 2012

¶19

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR, on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that with the intervention of respectables, they have amicably settled their disputes. The petitioner-accused has already paid the amount in lieu of loss caused to the Electricity Board and nothing is due towards him. Not only that, the complainant has also filed the affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the factum of compromise and maintained that he has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner-accused is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶20

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their all disputes vide compromise dated 29.03.2012(Annexure P-2).

¶21

Such, thus, being the position on record, now the main question that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

¶22

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

¶23

It is not a matter of dispute that the law with regard to quashing the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties by virtue of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR

¶24

CRM No.M-12149 of 2012

¶25

¶26

(Criminal) 9, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶27

The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under Section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶28

As is evident from the record that, the parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of respectables, without any pressure or coercion by way of compromise dated 29.03.2012(Annexure P-2). The petitioneraccused-Ranjit Singh has already paid the amount in lieu of loss caused to the Electricity Board and now nothing is due towards him. The complainant has no objection, if the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is quashed. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the

¶29

CRM No.M-12149 of 2012

¶30

¶31

parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to my mind, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this regard.

¶32

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.138 dated 13.05.2011(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petitioneraccused is accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶33

July 19, 2012 seema

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Ashraf Khan and Anr. Vs Sukhwinder Kaur and Ors.

Chetan Biala Vs State of Punjab

Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Bagicha Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Harcharan Singh

Dilbagh and Another Vs U.T. Chandigarh Thru Sho, P.S. Manimajra etc.