Allowed

Mahesh Gupta v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2012CRM-M/14785/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC based on a compromise. The court relied on precedents regarding the power to quash non-compoundable offences to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, ultimately allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.199 dated 30.5.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Mahesh Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-14785 of 2011 Date of Decision:18.1.2012

Mahesh Gupta

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. G.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.199 dated 30.5.2009 under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶14

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the family. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record to this effect.

¶15

The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the the affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶16

CRM M-14785 of 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

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 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, 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

under:-

¶22

“ 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

¶23

CRM M-14785 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

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.”

¶26

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a 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 FIR in the interest of justice.

¶27

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.199 dated 30.5.2009 under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶28

18.1.2012 rajeev

¶29

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Mahesh Gupta v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Gupta v. State of Haryana & 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

Sham Lal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ripan Khurana & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Pardeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Lal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Laxmi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.