Allowed

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2012CRM-M/22169/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR No.39 and subsequent proceedings under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 24 Emigration Act on the basis of a compromise between parties, citing powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 39 dated 26.04.2011 registered at Police Station Fattu Dhinga under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and Section 24 Emigration Act, 1983 along with all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-22169 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-22169 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 27^th , 2012

Balbir Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

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

¶12

Present Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab for the State.

¶14

Mr. Beant Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Balbir Singh, the petitioner has filed this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No.39 dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala, for an offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code and section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983 alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶17

Besides State counsel, respondent no. 2 represented by his counsel, Mr. Beant Singh, is appearing before the court. Learned counsel

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-22169 of 2011

¶19

¶20

for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the compromise, Annexure P2 and has asserted that the parties have compromised the matter. Respondent no. 2 has also filed his reply to the petition by way of affidavit affirming the fact that the matter has been compromised without any pressure or coercion.

¶21

Compromise brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute and restores tranquility in the society. After decision of this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 holding that a case regarding a non-compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties to achieve the aforesaid object, question arose regarding other non-compoundable offences. A Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , has taken the following view in the said matter:-

¶22

“29. 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 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.”

¶23

Therefore, the quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable offences

¶24

is not limited to matrimonial disputes and the FIR for the offence in question could also be quashed. However, before accepting the petition

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-22169 of 2011

¶26

¶27

and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is free from undue pressure. Once the court is satisfied on these points, then it has to see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or that it would prevent abuse of process of law. Respondent No.2 is represented by a counsel of his choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is available to him which itself dispels any fear of the court of the compromise being brought about by pressure upon respondent No.2.

¶28

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, continuation of the prosecution for the aforesaid offence, in the said FIR where the complainant would not be ready to support the allegations contained in the FIR, would be a futile exercise. Therefore, I accept the petition and quash FIR No. 39 dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala, for an offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 IPC and section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983 along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

¶29

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶30

August 27^th , 2012 som

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Ashwini Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharminder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baljeet Kumar and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Vicky Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mohinder Pal @ Harminder Pal Vs State of Punjab

Ishwar Dass Mittal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.