Allowed

Rajinder Singh and Anr. v. Manjit Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2012CRM-M/14422/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed petition to quash criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings under Sections 406, 498, and 120-B IPC. The High Court held that, following a compromise between parties, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process and a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal complaint No. 50/1/09 dated 11.4.2009 under Sections 406, 498 and 120-B IPC and subsequent proceedings including summoning order dated 2.3.2010.

Rajinder Singh and Anr. Vs Manjit Kaur — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.Misc. No. M-14422 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl.Misc. M No.14422 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2012

¶5

Rajinder Singh and another

......Petitioners

Versus

Manjit Kaur

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr.Rohit Khullar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sukhjit Singh Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Respondent No. 2 in person

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing criminal complaint No. 50/1/09 dated 11.4.2009 (Annexure P2) under Sections 406, 498 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), and summoning order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Annexure P2) as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/statement dated 30.4.2011 arrived at between the parties (Annexure P3 and P4).

¶15

¶16

Crl.Misc. No. M-14422 of 2012 (O&M)

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables . Respondent has returned back to the matrimonial home.

¶18

Respondent is present in person and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. She has further stated that now she is residing in her matrimonial home and has no objection if the complaint in question is ordered to be quashed. She has placed on record her affidavit in this regard.

¶19

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶20

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant

¶21

vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC

¶22

192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶23

“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain

¶24

Crl.Misc. No. M-14422 of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities

¶27

beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶28

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”

¶29

In case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and

¶30

another 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.13 has held as under:-

¶31

13. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion

¶32

Crl.Misc. No. M-14422 of 2012 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the

¶35

Crl.Misc. No. M-14422 of 2012 (O&M)

¶36

¶37

situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.”

¶38

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.

¶39

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 50/1/09 dated 11.4.2009 (Annexure P2) under Sections 406, 498 and 120-B IPC, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, including summoning order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar are quashed.

¶40

(Sabina) Judge

¶41

November 19, 2012

¶42

arya

Rajinder Singh and Anr. v. Manjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh and Anr. v. Manjit Kaur

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

Balwinder Singh Vs Nachhatar Singh

Swarna Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harbans Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sneha Tiwari @ Basu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Manjit Singh Vs S.P. Goel