Allowed

Raja Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Sept 2012CRM-M/16033/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR for offences under the IPC, including Section 307 non-compoundable offence, based on a proved compromise between the parties. The court held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of process even in serious non-compoundable cases if the compromise is fair.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 18 dated 26.3.2012 registered at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda for offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341 read with Section 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

Raja Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M.16033 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-16033 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 13^th , 2012

¶5

Raja Singh and others

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

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

¶12

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the State.

¶16

Mr. S.S. Sivia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶17

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶18

The petitioners brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 26.3.2012 registered at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda for an offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 324, 341 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶19

On notice of the petition, besides State counsel, respondent No. 2 has appeared before me along with his counsel, Mr. S.S.Sivia. He

¶20

Crl. Misc. No.M.16033 of 2012

¶21

¶22

has admitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶23

Vide orders dated 25.7.2012 passed by this court, the parties were directed to appear before learned trial court on 09.08.2012 in order to make statements there with regard to the compromise arrived at between them. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Bathinda recorded statements of the parties and submitted his report vide letter dated 31.8.2012 . According to him, the parties have compromised the matter.

¶24

Compromise brings not only peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute but restores tranquility in the society. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations as the prime concern of law, it was held in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 by this court that even if a matrimonial offence is non compoundable, a case regarding the same could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties to achieve the aforesaid object.

¶25

A Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , has taken the following decision regarding the other offences:-

¶26

“29. 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

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M.16033 of 2012

¶28

¶29

justice.”

¶30

Therefore, the quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable offences is not limited to matrimonial disputes only and the FIR for the other offences could also be quashed. Though, the offence under section 307 IPC is serious, yet in a serious case for an offence punishable under section 394 IPC, Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9 has ordered quashing of FIR and for that reason, to achieve the beneficial effect of compromise, the offence in hand could be quashed. However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is free from undue pressure. Once it is found that the compromise is just and fair and is not brought about by undue pressure of one party upon the other, the court has to then see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or would prevent abuse of process of law.

¶31

On questioning respondent No. 2, he has stated that no cause of friction is left between the parties. This compromise can certainly be said to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears to the court to be suggestive of any pressure, much less undue pressure on the respective parties for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be derived by any party in the matter of compromise. Respondent No. 2 is represented by counsel of his choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is also available to him.

¶32

¶33

Crl. Misc. No.M.16033 of 2012

¶34

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, continuation of the prosecution for the aforesaid offence, in the said FIR where respondent No. 2 would not be ready to support the allegations contained in the FIR, would be a futile exercise. Therefore, I accept the petition and quash FIR No.18 dated 26.3.2012 registered at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda for an offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 324, 341 read with section 34 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

¶35

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶36

September 13^th , 2012 som

Raja Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Rahul Thukral Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Neeru Mahajan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Poonam Mittal Vs Union of India and Others

Dabinder Singh Sohal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S South India Surgical Co. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shingara Singh Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr.