Allowed

Puran Singh & Ors. v. Joginder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2012CRM-M/16983/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that since the parties had mutually settled their disputes and withdrawn cases, the prosecution deserved to be quashed to promote peace and harmony between closely related parties. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the accused were discharged.

What did the court decide?

The complaint and all subsequent proceedings are quashed, and the petitioners-accused are discharged.

Puran Singh & Ors. Vs Joginder Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-16983 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-16983 of 2011(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:14.03.2012

¶6

Puran Singh and others ......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Joginder Singh and another .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr.Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2-State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶15

The symposium of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record is that, complainant-Joginder Singh son of Munna Singh, respondent No.1(for brevity “the complainant”) filed a criminal complaint(Annexure P-1) against the petitioners-accused, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149, 379, 435, 427 read with Section 120-B IPC in the trial Court.

¶16

During the pendency of the complaint, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise(Annexure P-2). Although, the parties made their respective statements reiterating the compromise, but their plea was not accepted by the trial Court, mainly, on the ground that the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC cannot be compounded, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.04.2011(Annexure P-5).

¶17

Criminal Misc.No.M-16983 of 2011

¶18

¶19

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that since, the parties have compromised the matter, so, the complaint(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed, in view of the compromise(Annexure P-2). Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties, the present criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed in this respect.

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶21

The bare perusal of the record would reveal that, the complainant has filed the complaint(Annexure P-1) against the petitioners-accused. The parties have entered into a compromise(Annexure P-2), which is to the following effect:-

¶22

“That the dispute of the parties amongst is pending in various courts wherein the respectable have got affected the compromise between the parties which is as under:-

¶23

That the cases which have been filed by Joginder Singh, those cases have been withdrawn by Joginder Singh from the courts and the cases which were filed by Puran Singh etc., those cases have been withdrawn by Puran Singh etc.

¶24

That now there remains no misunderstanding, grudge between the parties and in future the parties would not file the cases against each other and Joginder Singh is bound to withdraw the present complaint.

¶25

Thus, your good self is requested to accept the compromise. We shall be highly obliged.”

¶26

6 . Not only that, in pursuance of the compromise, complainant-Joginder Singh made the statement(Annexure P-3) in the trial Court, reiterating the factum of compromise(Annexure P-2)(Exhibit C-1 therein) and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed, as per compromise. Sequelly, the petitioners have also

¶27

Criminal Misc.No.M-16983 of 2011 3

¶28

made the statement(Annexure P-4) admitting the factum of compromise(Annexure P-2)(Exhibit C-1 therein). As indicated earlier, the trial Court negate the compromise between the parties only on the ground that the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC cannot be compounded.

¶29

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that, the parties have mutually settled their all disputes and entered into a compromise(Annexure P-2). It is not a matter of dispute that the law with regard to quashing the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of criminal disputes, by way of compromise between the parties, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus 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.

¶30

The crux 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 and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way 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. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal

¶31

¶32

Criminal Misc.No.M-16983 of 2011

¶33

proceedings, relatable to such disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶34

As is evident from the record that, the parties have compromised the matter, as per compromise-deed(Annexure P-2), by virtue of which, they have decided to withdraw all their respective cases instituted against each other. There remains no misunderstanding or grudge between them. They will live in peace in future. Moreover, both the parties are closely related and belong to the same village. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in their welfare and interest, so, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties 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.

¶35

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the complaint(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶36

March 14, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Puran Singh & Ors. v. Joginder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Singh & Ors. v. Joginder Singh

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