Allowed

Malkiat Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2012CRM-M/13184/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/34 IPC based on a compromise. The court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR in the interest of justice, relying on settled legal positions regarding compromises in personal disputes.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.91 dated 15.06.2005 registered at Police Station City Ferozepur under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/34 IPC is quashed.

Malkiat Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2012 Date of Decision: 07.05.2012

Malkiat Kaur

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

Present:Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

¶16

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.91 dated 15.06.2005 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/34 IPC registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶18

Notice of motion.

¶19

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, D.A.G.,Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

¶20

At this stage, Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Respondent no.2 has filed his short written statement through his General Power of Attorney Mohinder Pal and

¶21

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2012

¶23

the same has been placed on record.

¶24

The FIR, in question, was registered against respondent No.2/accused by the present petitioner/complainant-Malkiat Kaur. Due to the intervention of the relatives of both the parties, the matter has been compromised. As per the compromise, the petitioner had agreed to withdraw all civil and criminal complaints, cases, suits filed against respondent No.2 including petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C pending or decided already filed by her against respondent No.2. Further, the respondent No.2 through his General Power of Attorney has filed his short written statement, in which, he stated that two demand drafts of Rs.5 lakh each has been prepared. Out of which, one DD has been handed over to the petitioner and the other DD has been handed over to his uncle, namely, Kishan Singh which would be handed over by her uncle to her after the quashing of the abovesaid FIR. An affidavit of the petitioner/complainant was also executed affirming the factum of compromise and the same is placed on record. It is duly stated by her that the matter has been compromised and she has no objection, if the said FIR is quashed. Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has also been filed in the Court today. The same is taken on record. The dispute is personal in nature and the same having been compromised, it is 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 the FIR.

¶25

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. 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,

¶26

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2012

¶28

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 :-

¶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 noncompoundable 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.”

¶30

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

¶31

under :-

¶32

“ 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.”

¶33

The dispute is personal in nature. The same has been compromised. In view of the settled position of law, it is a fit case where the Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR.

¶34

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No..91 dated 15.06.2005 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/34 IPC

¶35

¶36

Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2012

¶37

registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur is hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

¶38

07.05.2012 gurpreet

¶39

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE