Allowed

Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2012CRM-M/14125/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 251 registered under various IPC sections. The Court held that since the complainant had compromised the matter without pressure and filed an affidavit to that effect, no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 251 dated 01.05.2008 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua all the accused.

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 14125 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 14125 of 2012 Date of decision: 29.05.2012

¶4

Santokh Singh ........Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. K D Sachdeva, Addl. A G Punjab for the respondent (s)

¶11

Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

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

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

¶18

No. 251 dated 01.05.2008 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Tehsil and District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 27.04.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶19

CRM No. M 14125 of 2012 2

¶20

Complainant - Tara Singh is present in Court along with his counsel. He got recorded his statement in Court today. As per the said statement, the complainant has compromised the matter with all the accused and has no objection if the said FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua all the accused. Moreover, affidavit of the complainant is already on file as P4.

¶21

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶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 observed as under:-

¶23

“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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶24

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶25

Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶26

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved

¶27

CRM No. M 14125 of 2012 3

¶28

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.”

¶29

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶30

Taking into account the allegations, compromise, affidavit of the complainant (P4) and statement of the complainant suffered before this Court, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 251 dated 01.05.2008 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Tehsil and District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua all the accused.

¶32

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶34

29.05.2012 mohan

Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santokh Singh 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

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bhagwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Nitin Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Punjab

Gurjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gagan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shivali and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.