The court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a subsequent compromise between the parties, finding no impediment to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings given the amicable settlement.
FIR No. 149 dated 10.04.2009 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No. M 15544 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M 15544 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.05.2012
Atul Kumar and another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Amardeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent State
Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant
-.-
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 149 dated 10.04.2009 under Section 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 14.05.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.
The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel. He filed his reply to the petition admitting the fact that the aforesaid FIR was
CRM No. M 15544 of 2011 2
got registered by him and now, the matter has been compromised and accordingly, prayed that the same be quashed in view of the compromise dated 14.05.2011.
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.
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:-
“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.”
The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-
“6. We need to emphasize 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
CRM No. M 15544 of 2011 3
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.”
The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as reply of respondent No. 2 to the petition admitting the factum of the said compromise, 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.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 149 dated 10.04.2009 under Section 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
mohan
14.05.2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a compounding of criminal proceedings by way of a compromise under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is valid and warrants quashing of the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶22
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Noronha v. State of PunjabReferred¶24
(2008)4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Atul Kumar and another
State of Haryana
Respondent No. 2
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
