Allowed

Robert Gaaru v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2012CRM-M/14742/2012

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 an FIR involving matrimonial and other IPC offences. The court held that a judicial compromise between the parties rendered further proceedings futile and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 261 dated 17.11.2011 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Robert Gaaru Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14742 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14742 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 18.7.2012

Robert Gaaru

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶13

Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

Respondent No.2 in person along with Mr.Raman Deep, Advocate.

¶15

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 261 dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 376 (2)/ 337/ 511/ 498-A/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar, Nakodar, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area. The FIR was an offshoot of matrimonial dispute. Challan had been presented in this case only under Section 498-A IPC.

¶19

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14742 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise effected between the parties and has stated that she has no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Affidavit of respondent No.2 in this regard is already on record.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

“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 documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with

¶27

Crl.Misc.No.M- 14742 of 2012 (O&M) 3

¶28

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?

¶29

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.”

¶30

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.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 261 dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 376 (2)/ 337/ 511/ 498-A/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar, Nakodar, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶33

July 18, 2012 anita

Robert Gaaru v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robert Gaaru 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

Jaspal Singh Virk Vs Kapoor Singh & Ors.

Balwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs Tek Chand

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kiran Bala Vs Pardeep & Ors.