Allowed

Chaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2012CRM-M/18727/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/325/324/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings based on a compromise between close relatives from the same ancestral clan, relying on Section 482 Cr.P.C. and earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 51 dated 11.2.2006 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Chaman Lal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of decision:17.02.2012

¶3

CRM M-18727 of 2011

¶4

Chaman Lal and others

¶5

.... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

.... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

¶11

¶12

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral)

¶14

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 11.2.2006 under Sections 308/325/324/34 IPC Police Station City Moga, District Moga and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has since been compromised due to the invervention of the respectable of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) have also been placed on record in this regard.

¶16

The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 have

¶17

CRM M-18727 of 2011 -2-

¶18

already placed on record the replies by way of affidavits of respondents No.2 to 5 admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said replies, complainant as well as the injured persons in their have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶19

No doubt, the case registered is under Section 308 IPC. However, parties are from the same ancestral clan. The petitioners and respondents are close relative and they are living in the adjoining houses in same locality. They have arrived at a compromise and decided not to pursue the litigation against each other. The quashing of FIR will help to sink their differences and avoid resulting in future enmity between them.

¶20

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:-

¶21

“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

¶22

-3-

¶23

CRM M-18727 of 2011

¶24

be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶25

The Apex Court in the case of of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v.

¶26

State of Punjab' reported as 2008(4) SCC 582 emphasised in para No.6 as follows:-

¶27

“6. 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.”

¶28

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana & anr. reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)888 in para 6 and 11, held as under:

¶29

“6. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749 ] , this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would

¶30

-4-

¶31

CRM M-18727 of 2011

¶32

depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers.

¶33

In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692] , it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.”

¶34

Thus, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case where the parties are from one clan and closely related, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accept the compromise for quashing of the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above

¶35

CRM M-18727 of 2011

¶36

-5-

¶37

settled proposition of law and in the interest of justice.

¶38

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant as well as the injured have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶39

Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 51 dated 11.2.2006 under Sections 308/325/324/34 IPC Police Station City Moga, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶40

17.2.2012 rajeev

¶41

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Chaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Mukesh Goel and Anr. Vs M/S Euro Containers

Subhash Nagpal & Anr. Vs Neeraj Kakkar

Avnish Jain Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rupinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Chasham Pal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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