Allowed

Usha Khanna v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2012CRM-M/12504/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Habeas Corpus and Other Writ Jurisdictional Matters, the Court quashed an FIR under sections 420 and 120-B IPC based on a settlement between parties, holding that inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. extend to non-compoundable offences when the compromise is voluntary and just.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 369 dated 16.10.2011 and all subsequent proceedings under sections 420 and 120-B IPC were quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-12504 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-12504 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 17^th , 2012

¶5

Usha Khanna .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

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?

¶10

Present Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the State.

¶12

Mr. Bikram Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶14

Crl.Misc no. 55240 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed as prayed for. Annexure P6 is taken on

¶16

record.

¶17

Main case

¶18

Usha Khanna, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 369 dated 16.10.2011 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising

¶19

Crl. Misc. No.M-12504 of 2012

¶20

¶21

out of the same, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2) arrived at between the parties.

¶22

Originally in the FIR, there had been three accused out of whom two were found innocent. An objection was raised by learned counsel for the complainant to the quashing of the FIR because the FIR had been against the other two persons also. Facing this situation, the other two persons who were accused in the FIR have also entered into a compromise with the complainant/respondent no.2. As per the terms of the compromise, Annexure P6, a sum of 1.00 lac in cash has been paid today by the petitioner to the complainant.

¶23

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 basis of compromise between the parties to achieve the aforesaid object.

¶24

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:-

¶25

“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

¶26

Crl. Misc. No.M-12504 of 2012

¶27

¶28

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.”

¶29

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.

¶30

On questioning, respondent no. 2 has admitted the factum about the matter having been compromised without any undue pressure. 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 respective parties for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be derived by any party in the matter of compromise.

¶31

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, continuation of the prosecution for the aforesaid offence, in the said FIR where the respondent No. 2 would not be ready to support the allegations against the petitioners, would be a futile exercise. Therefore, I accept the petition and quash FIR No.369 dated 16.10.2011 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under

¶32

Crl. Misc. No.M-12504 of 2012

¶33

¶34

sections 420 and 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings

¶35

arising out of the same.

¶36

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶37

September 17^th , 2012 som