Allowed

Malkiat Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jan 2012CRM-M/1687/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an FIR under Sections 379/380 IPC seeking quashing via Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relying on precedents regarding compromises in criminal cases including non-compoundable offences, the court held that since a compromise was reached and affirmed by the complainant, the FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.180 dated 13.9.2008 under Sections 379/380 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Malkiat Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-1687 of 2009 Date of Decision:6.1.2012

¶3

Malkiat Singh and others

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Manish Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.180 dated 13.9.2008 under Sections 379/380 IPC Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar.

¶16

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.5. However, during the pendency of the present petition, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has already placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.5 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.5 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶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

¶19

CRM M-1687 of 2009

¶20

-2-

¶21

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:-

¶22

“ 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 noncompoundable 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.”

¶23

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

¶24

“ 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 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.”

¶25

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.5 stating that he has

¶26

CRM M-1687 of 2009

¶27

-3-

¶28

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.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.180 dated 13.9.2008 under Sections 379/380 IPC Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶30

6.1.2012 rajeev

¶31

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Malkiat Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkiat Singh 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

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

Harminder Singh @ Sodhi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Arshdeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Parveen Kumari & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Issak Vs State of Haryana and Others