Allowed

Rohit Parti v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2012CRM-M/21458/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR under cheating-related offences and subsequent proceedings pursuant to a genuine compromise between the parties, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on precedents supporting compromises in criminal disputes.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.197 dated 24.6.2011 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Rohit Parti Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-21458 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.4.2012

Rohit Parti

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Union Territory and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, 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.197 dated 24.6.2011 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC Police Station Sector-17, U.T. Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

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

¶17

Vide order dated 27.1.2012, the parties were directed to be present before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of both the parties and send its report with respect to the genuineness of the compromise.

¶18

CRM M-21458 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

In pursuance to the same, report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties were recorded. It is further submitted that as per the statements of the parties, the compromise between the parties is genuine and without any pressure.

¶21

Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised.

¶22

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 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:-

¶23

“ 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 thewide 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 justice.”

¶24

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab

¶25

CRM M-21458 of 2011

¶26

-3-

¶27

2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶28

“ 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.”

¶29

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.197 dated 24.6.2011 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC Police Station Sector-17, U.T. Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶31

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶32

19.4.2012 rajeev

Rohit Parti v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Parti v. Ut of Chandigarh 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

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

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

Gulistan & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kulvinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manav Chandra & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Sukhdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others