Allowed

Hardep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2012CRM-M/23484/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under the SC&ST (Protection of Civil Rights) Act, 1989, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise between parties. The Court upheld the petition, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.11 dated 14.2.2011 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Hardep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-23484 of 2011 Date of Decision:21.2.2012

Hardeep Kaur

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. J.S. Saneta, 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.11 dated 14.2.2011 under Sections 3 of SC&ST (PA) Act, 1989, Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala 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 already been placed on record to this effect.

¶17

The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavits of respondent No.2 as well as one Mohan Lal-affected party admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavits, they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶18

CRM M-23484 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

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:-

¶21

“ 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.”

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

“ 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

¶25

CRM M-23484 of 2011 technicalities of the law.”

¶26

-3-

¶27

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavits of respondent No.2 as well as affected party i.e. Mohan Lal stating that they have no objection if the FIR 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.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.11 dated 14.2.2011 under Sections 3 of SC&ST (PA) Act, 1989, Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶29

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶30

21.2.2012 rajeev

Hardep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardep Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Rupinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Chaman Lal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Chasham Pal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

A.J. Ansari Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Lakhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.