Allowed

Hardev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2012CRM-M/23421/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed FIR No. 81 dated 07.10.2008 under Section 431 IPC and Sections 420, 427, 120B IPC registered against the petitioners. The complainant stated that the dispute regarding passage and watercourse was amicably resolved via a compromise, facilitated by the Panchayat, removing any impediment to quashing the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 81 dated 07.10.2008 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Hardev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 23421 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 23421 of 2011 Date of decision: 09.01.2012

¶4

Hardev Singh and others ........ Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. M S Virk, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State

¶11

Mr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, 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. 81 dated 07.10.2008 (P-1) under Section 431 IPC and Sections 420, 427, 120B IPC added later on, P S Jourkian District Mansa, which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 13.07.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶19

The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel. He

¶20

CRM No. M 23421 of 2011 2

¶21

filed his reply by way of affidavit, stating therein, that aforesaid FIR was got registered by him. Now with the intervention of the Panchayat, the matter has been amicably resolved and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶22

In the present case, a minor dispute qua passage as well as watercourse in the fields led to filing of the present FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties.

¶23

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:-

¶24

“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.”

¶25

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:-

¶26

“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 criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with

¶27

CRM No. M 23421 of 2011 3

¶28

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

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶30

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as reply by way of affidavit of the complainant, 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.

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 81 dated 07.10.2008 (P-1) under Section 431 IPC and Sections 420, 427, 120B IPC added later on, P S Jourkian District Mansa and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶32

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶34

mohan

¶35

09.01.2012

Hardev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 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

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

Arshdeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Parveen Kumari & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaspal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mandeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.