Allowed

Ameen v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012CRM-M/12275/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR for cheating and forgery. Citing a genuine compromise between parties and judicial precedents emphasizing compromise in modern society, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings and subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.136 dated 4.9.2010 under Sections 457,380 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-12275 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.1.2012

Ameen

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.136 dated 4.9.2010 under Sections 457,380 IPC Police Station City II, Malerkotla District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record in this regard.

¶16

Vide order dated 26.4.2011, the learned trial Court was directed to send the report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure P-2) after recording the statements of all the concerned parties.

¶17

In pursuance to the same, report of the learned Sub

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM M-12275 of 2011

¶20

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties were recorded. As per the statements of the parties, it appears that the compromise between them is genuine.

¶21

Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised.

¶22

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 held that 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 reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-

¶23

“ 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 thewide 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.”

¶24

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶25

CRM M-12275 of 2011 -3-

¶26

“ We need to emphasise 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.”

¶27

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the report received from the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.136 dated 4.9.2010 under Sections 457,380 IPC Police Station City II, Malerkotla District Sangrur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶29

16.1.2012 rajeev

¶30

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Ameen v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameen v. State of Punjab 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

Aman Manchanda Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Buta Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & or.S

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jasbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Deepak Gupta & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.