Allowed

Karnail Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigah and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2012CRM-M/23318/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings. Relying on precedents regarding compromise in criminal cases involving non-compoundable offences, the Court quashed the FIR based on a valid compromise and payment between the parties.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.343 dated 18.12.2009 under Sections 406 IPC and Section 2 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

Karnail Singh Vs Union Territory of Chandigah and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-23318 of 2010 Date of Decision:27.1.2012

¶3

Karnail Singh and others

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Territory of Chandigarh and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. P.S. Sikand, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Ms. Anju Arora, 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.343 dated 18.12.2009 under Sections 406 IPC and Section 2 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Sector 36, 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 during the pendency of the present petition due to the intervention of the respectable of the area.

¶17

The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also placed on record his affidavit and that of his daughter authenticating the compromise. As per the said affidavits, they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed in case Rs.50,000/- is paid by the petitioners.

¶18

CRM M-23318 of 2010 -2-

¶19

In pursuance to the compromise, learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over Rs.50,000/- cash to learned counsel for respondent No.2. The same has been accepted and handed over to respondent No.2 Raghbir Singh.

¶20

Respondent No.2-Raghbir Singh, who is present in the Court, got his statement recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised. In pursuance to the compromise, he has received Rs.50,000/cash in the Court today stating he and his daughter Jaswant Kaur have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶21

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:-

¶22

“ 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 noncompoundable 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

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008

¶24

CRM M-23318 of 2010

¶25

-3-

¶26

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

¶27

“ 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

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavits of respondent No.2 and daughter of respondent No.2 as well the statement of respondent No.2 stating that they have no objection if the complaint in question is quashed, 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.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.343 dated 18.12.2009 under Sections 406 IPC and Section 2 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶30

27.1.2012 rajeev

¶31

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Karnail Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigah 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

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Shiv Dev Singh Rakkar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rocky and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pinki and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.