Allowed

Harsimran Singh @ Hobby and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Sept 2012CRM-M/16863/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed petitions to quash cross criminal cases arising from the same FIR where parties had amicably settled their dispute through a valid compromise deed. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court quashed the proceedings and discharged the accused, emphasizing the power to quash in favour of peace when settlements are genuine.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR No.84 dated 27.4.2012 and all consequent proceedings in both cross cases were quashed; petitioners discharged.

Harsimran Singh @ Hobby and Ors. Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM Nos. M-16863 & 29036 of 2012 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

1. CRM No. M-16863 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Harsimran Singh alias Hobby & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

2 . CRM No. M-29036 of 2012 (O&M)

¶8

Samual Masih & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondents

¶11

Date of Decision:-27.9.2012

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶13

Present: Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM No.M16863 of 2012 (1^st case) and for respondent No.2 in cross CRM No.M-29036 of 2012 (2^nd case).

¶14

Mr.T.S.Salana, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.

¶15

Mr.S.S.Goraya, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM No. M-29036 of 2012 (2^nd case) and for respondent No.2 in CRM No.M-16863 of 2012 (1^st case).

¶16

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶17

As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, bearing CRM No.M-16863 of 2012 titled as ”Harsimran Singh alias Hobby & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.” (for brevity “the 1^st case”) and CRM No.M29036 of 2012 titled as “Samual Masih & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.” (for short “the 2^nd case”), arising out of the same very FIR/cross

¶18

CRM Nos. M-16863 & 29036 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶19

case, by means of this common judgment in order to avoid the repetition. 2. Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petitions and emanating from the record, are that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Samual Masih -respondent No.2 (in short “the complainant”) (in 1^st case), a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Harsimran Singh alias Hobby and others, by virtue of FIR No.84 dated 27.4.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 341 read with section 34 IPC (the offence punishable u/s 326 IPC was lateron added) by the police of Police Station Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur.

¶20

At the same time and during the course of same occurrence, Harsimran Singh and Baljit Singh @ Bala also sustained injuries at the hands of complainant party. Consequently, in pursuance of statement (Annexure P1) of Harsimran Singh s/o Manjit Singh, a cross criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Samual Masih and others (in 2^nd case) for the commission of offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 341, 379, & 427 read with section 149 IPC, by way of same very FIR and by the same Police Station. 4. During the course of investigation, good sense prevailed and the parties in both the criminal cross cases, have amicably settled their dispute, through the medium of compromise deed dated 6.5.2012 (Annexure P3), affidavit of complainant Samual Masih (Annexure P2 in 1^st case) and compromise (Annexure P3 in the 2^nd case).

¶21

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused

¶22

CRM Nos. M-16863 & 29036 of 2012 (O&M) -3-

¶23

in both the cross cases, have preferred the present petitions to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC on the basis of compromise, inter-alia pleading that with the intervention of respectable persons of village and relatives, the matter has been amicably settled by both the parties. There is no ill-will against each other. They don't want to take any legal action against each other. The complainants in both the cases, have no objection if the criminal cases registered against each other are quashed. The factum of compromise is reiterated by the complainant in his affidavit (Annexure P2 in 1^st case). On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused in both the cases, sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-inabove.

¶24

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure P3) by this Court, vide order dated 21.8.2012.

¶25

In compliance thereof, the Magistrate submitted his report, bearing No.174 dated 18.9.2012, which, in substance, is as under:-

¶26

“As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 21.8.2012, complainant/accused/witnesses namely Samual Masih and Vikramjeet Singh, Harsimran Singh alias Hobby, Manjit Singh and Baljit Singh appeared in this Court and they made statements that they have compromised the matter with Samuel Masih and others in cross version vide DDR No.16 dated 28.4.2012, FIR No.84 dated 27.4.2012, u/s 323/324/341/427/379/326/325/148/149 and in cross version other party stated that they have compromised the matter with Harsimran Singh alias Hobby in

¶27

CRM Nos. M-16863 & 29036 of 2012 (O&M) -4-

¶28

FIR no.84 dated 27.4.2012 u/s 323/324/341/326/34 of IPC, with the intervention of respectable.

¶29

Thus from the statement of complainant, accused and witnesses, this court comes to the conclusion that there effected compromise inter-se parties and such compromise is otherwise genuine and parties entered in such compromise without any under pressure.”

¶30

In this manner, having recorded the statements of complainant, injured and all the concerned parties, it was concluded by the Magistrate that the parties in both the criminal cases have compromised the matter. Thus, it stands proved on record that the parties in both the criminal cases have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise deed (Annexure P3), affidavit of complainant Samual Masih (Annexure P2 in 1^st case) and compromise (Annexure P3 in 2^nd case). The complainants have no objection if both the criminal cross cases are quashed.

¶31

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the present cases is, as to whether the cross cases, by way of impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ?

¶32

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the instant criminal prosecution is quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the criminal prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between them.

¶33

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law with

¶34

CRM Nos. M-16863 & 29036 of 2012 (O&M) -5-

¶35

regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties, by way of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9; Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶36

The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain & control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute, by means of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery, if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. 13. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such fight disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable in the instant cases and is the complete

¶37

CRM Nos. M-16863 & 29036 of 2012 (O&M) -6-

¶38

answer to the problem in hand.

¶39

As is evident from the record, that in both the cross cases, the parties have amicably settled their disputes at the instance of respectable persons of village and relatives, without any kind of influence or pressure, by means of compromise (Annexure P3), affidavit of complainant Samual Masih (Annexure P2 in 1^st case) and compromise (Annexure P3 in the 2^nd case). They have decided to live in peace and harmony in future. There is no ill-will against each other. They do not want to take any legal action against each other. They shall abide by the terms & conditions of the compromise. The complainants in both the cases have reiterating the factum of compromise. They have no objection if criminal cross cases registered against each other are quashed. The genuineness and validity of compromise has also been reiterated by the Magistrate in his indicated report. Therefore, the compromise is in welfare & interest of both the parties. To my mind, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner.

¶40

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are hereby accepted. Consequently, both the cross cases, arising out of the same FIR No.84 dated 27.4.2012 (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed. Accordingly, the petitionersaccused are discharged in both the cross cases in the obtaining circumstances of the cases.

¶41

27.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

Harsimran Singh @ Hobby and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsimran Singh @ Hobby and Ors. 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

M/S Medical India and Anr. Vs M/S Nav Rattan Traders and Anr.

Harbans Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Paramjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

R. Nanda Vs Tilak Raj Sharma

Ranjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

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