Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2012CRM-M/24333/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal FIR under Section 482 CrPC after amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute. High Court accepted petition and quashed proceedings based on voluntary compromise.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings were quashed; petitioners were acquitted.

What the court decided

Manjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-24333 of 2012 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M-24333 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision:-25.9.2012

¶5

Manjit Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶9

Present:Mr.A.S.Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr.Hitender Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶13

Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, in the wake of complaint of complainant Kuldip Kaur, daughter of Malkiat Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitionersaccused, by means of FIR No.41 dated 19.9.1999 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A, 420 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Humbran, District Ludhiana.

¶14

After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of section 173 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the petitioners were charge sheeted for the trial of indicated offences by the trial Court and the case was slated for evidence of the

¶15

CRM No. M-24333 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶16

prosecution.

¶17

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, by virtue of compromise dated 23.7.2012 (Annexure P2) and affidavit (Annexure P3) of the complainant.

¶18

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, on the basis of compromise, inter-alia pleading that both the parties have entered into compromise with their own sweet will. The complainant has reiterated the factum of compromise in her affidavit (Annexure P3). She is not interested at all to proceed further against the petitioners-accused in the criminal case in question. She has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. According to the parties that no useful purpose would be served to get the matter alive, particularly when, they have amicably settled their dispute. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.

¶19

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise, vide order dated 21.8.2012.

¶20

In compliance thereof, the CJM Ludhiana has submitted his report, bearing No.851 dated 10.9.2012, which, in substance, is as under:-

¶21

CRM No. M-24333 of 2012 (O&M) -3-

¶22

“Complainant Kuldip Kaur has stated that with the intervention of respectables, parties have compromised the matter and compromise was executed vide Ex.C1, which is annexure P-2 attached with the petition before the Hon'ble High Court. She further stated that she got attested affidavit, which is Ex,.C2 and annexure P-3 and that she has no objection if the aforesaid FIR be quashed against all the accused. Accused Ranjit Kaur, Manjit Singh, Balwant Singh, Bhag Singh, Sukhjinder Singh Shera have also stated that with the intervention of respectables, they have compromised the matter with Kuldeep Kaur vide compromise Ex.C1 Annexure P-2 and they will abide by the conditions mentioned in Ex.C1. Accused Amarjit Singh has not come present to record his statement. Perusal of the main file also reveals that the challan has been presented showing the accused Amarjit Singh as proclaimed offender and charge has not been framed against him.

¶23

From the statements, it appears that compromise has been voluntarily entered into between the parties and the affidavit got attested by the complainant has been executed by her.”

¶24

In this manner, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise (Annexure P2) and affidavit (Annexure P3) of the complainant.

¶25

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the present case is, as to whether the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ?

¶26

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the instant criminal prosecution is quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the criminal

¶27

CRM No. M-24333 of 2012 (O&M) -4-

¶28

prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between them. 10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law with regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties, by way of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9; Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties. 11. The crux of the law laid down in the indicated judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by means of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery, if the statement is fair being free from under pressure.

¶29

Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such matrimonial disputes,

¶30

CRM No. M-24333 of 2012 (O&M) -5-

¶31

on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable in the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶32

As is evident from the record, that with the intervention of respectables, relatives and members of panchayat of village, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise (Annexure P2) and affidavit (Annexure P3) of the complainant. They have redressed their grievances. The complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto against the petitioners are quashed. The parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute. Since the compromise is in their welfare & interest., so, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner.

¶33

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Accordingly, the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶34

25.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Manjit 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

Baldev Raj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajneesh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mohinder Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Others

Gram Panchayat Nathupur Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

S.L. Goel Vs State (Union Territory, Chandigarh)

Bodh Raj Vs State of Punjab