Allowed

Ram Phal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Sept 2012CRM-M/13293/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC for offences under IPC 307 and Arms Act 25 based on a compromise. The Court found the compromise fair and voluntary, with no left-over friction, and ordered quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 127 dated 25.03.2012 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh for offences punishable under section 307 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act alongwith all subsequent proceedings arisin

Ram Phal Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-13293 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-13293 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 13^th , 2012

Ram Phal

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

Present Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Preetpal, APP, U.T. Chandigarh.

¶16

Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶17

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶18

Ram Phal, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 127 dated 25.03.2012 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh for an offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶19

On notice of the petitions, besides State counsel, respondents No. 2 and 3 have appeared before me along with their counsel, Mr. Balraj

¶20

Crl. Misc. No.M-13293 of 2012

¶21

¶22

Singh, Advocate. They have admitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶23

Vide orders dated 25.7.2012 passed by this court, the parties were directed to appear before learned trial court on 08.08.2012 in order to make statements there with regard to the compromise arrived at between them. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh recorded statements of the parties and submitted his report vide letter dated 11.8.2012. According to him, the parties have compromised the matter.

¶24

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.

¶25

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:-

¶26

“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

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-13293 of 2012

¶28

¶29

order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶30

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. Though, the offence under section 307 IPC is serious, yet in a serious case for an offence punishable under section 394 IPC, Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9 has ordered quashing of FIR and for that reason, to achieve the beneficial effect of compromise, the offence in hand could 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.

¶31

On questioning respondents No.2 and 3, they have 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 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. They are represented by counsel of their choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is also available to them.

¶32

¶33

Crl. Misc. No.M-13293 of 2012

¶34

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, continuation of the prosecution for the aforesaid offence, in the said FIR where respondents No.2 and 3 would not be ready to support the allegations against each other, would be a futile exercise. Therefore, I accept the petition and quash FIR No.127 dated 25.03.2012 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

¶35

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶36

September 13^th , 2012 som

Ram Phal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Phal v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

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

Partap Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Suman Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satish Son of Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Residents Welfare Association etc. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ravinder Singh Dhull Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Shamsher Vs State of Haryana & Ors.