Allowed

Gurcharan Singh Bhatti v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2012CRM-M/2235/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered for forgery and procedural offences. The quashing was based on the settled proposition that disputes resolved by compromise can be quashed, citing relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 214 dated 20.10.2007 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same were quashed in light of the compromise.

Gurcharan Singh Bhatti Vs Ut of Chandigarh… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 2235 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 2235 of 2012 Date of decision: 24.02.2012

¶4

Gurcharan Singh Bhatti ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of UT and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr.ADS Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. Preetpal Singh, APP, for UT, Chandigarh

¶11

Mr. J C Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

¶18

No. 214 dated 20.10.2007 under Sections 448, 451, 453, 454, 380 IPC, Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 09.01.2012 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶19

Today, Mr. J C Kapoor, who put in appearance and filed his

¶20

CRM No. M 2235 of 2012 2

¶21

power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 2, states at the Bar that complainant/respondent No. 2 could not come present in Court today as he is not well. He also states that he has the instructions from the respondent No. 2 to state that the matter has been compromised with respondent No. 2 and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Respondent No. 2 has also submitted his affidavit to the said effect which is placed on record as P3.

¶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 observed as under:-

¶23

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

¶24

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶25

“6. We need to emphasize 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

¶26

CRM No. M 2235 of 2012

¶27

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

Taking into account the allegations, aforesaid statement of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the matter has been compromised as also the affidavit of the complainant (P3), there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 214 dated 20.10.2007 under Sections 448, 451, 453, 454, 380 IPC, Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶30

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶32

24.02.2012 mohan

Gurcharan Singh Bhatti v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurcharan Singh Bhatti 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

Shilpa Johar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Hoshiari Lal Vs State of Punjab

Aashish Chaudhary & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vijender Anjan Vs Joginder Singh Bedi and Ors.

Sulakhan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Babu Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab