The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, under inherent powers, allowed petitioners to quash FIR 5 on grounds of compromise between parties. The court quashed subsequent proceedings in the interest of justice and harmony.
Quashing of FIR No. 5 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-12242 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-23486 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-12242 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 12th , 2012
Amarjit Singh and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
2. Criminal Misc. No. M-23486 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 12th , 2012
Parminder Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
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?
Present Mr. K.K.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State.
Mr. Vikas Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2
Crl. Misc. No.M-12242 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-23486 of 2012
2
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
The petitioners in the above mentioned petitions, brought under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 5 dated 16.1.2009 registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Industrial Area, District Ludhiana City for an offence punishable under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
On notice of the petitions, besides State counsel, respondent No. 2 has appeared before me along with his counsel, Mr. Vikas Goyal, Advocate. He has admitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties.
Vide orders dated 13.8.2012, passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-23486 of 2012 by this court, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 7.8.2012 in order to make statements there with regard to the compromise arrived at between them. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana recorded statements of the parties and submitted his report vide letter dated 6.9.2012. According to her, the parties have compromised the matter.
Compromise brings not only peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute but 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
Crl. Misc. No.M-12242 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-23486 of 2012
3
basis of compromise between the parties to achieve the aforesaid object.
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 decision regarding the other offences:-
“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.”
Therefore, the quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable offences is not limited to matrimonial disputes only and the FIR for the other offences could also be quashed. However, before accepting the 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 it is found that the compromise is just and fair and is not brought about by undue pressure of one party upon the other, the court has to then see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or would prevent abuse of process of law.
On questioning respondent no.2, he has stated that no cause of friction is left between the parties. This compromise can certainly be said to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears
4
Crl. Misc. No.M-12242 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-23486 of 2012
to the court to be suggestive of any pressure, much less undue pressure on the respective parties for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be derived by any party in the matter of compromise. Respondent No. 2 is represented by counsel of his choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is also available to them.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, continuation of the prosecution for the aforesaid offence, in the said FIR and cross-version where the parties would not be ready to support the allegations against each other, would be a futile exercise. Therefore, I accept the petitions and quash FIR No. 5 dated 16.1.2009 registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Industrial Area, District Ludhiana City for an offence punishable under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
September 12th , 2012 som
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIRs based on compounding offences can be quenched upon settlement?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dharambir Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶29
Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶33
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Amarjit Singh and others
Parminder Singh
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
