Allowed

Raman Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2012CRM-M/24505/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. recalling that a voluntary compromise was arrived at between the parties, held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing criminal proceedings, and accordingly quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 64 dated 11.06.2011 under Section 420/120-B IPC at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising out of it are quashed.

Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 24505 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 24505 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.04.2012

¶4

Raman Kumar and others ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. K R Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. D S Mann, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State

¶11

-.-

¶12

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

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶16

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 64 dated 11.06.2011 (P1) under Section 420/120-B IPC, Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 01.08.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶17

Vide order dated 14.12.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate on 10.01.2012. Trial Court was also

¶18

CRM No. M 24505 of 2011 2

¶19

directed to record the statement of all the affected parties and shall record a finding whether any voluntary compromise has been arrived at between the parties or not. Report was also called for.

¶20

In pursuance to the said order, now, the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira, vide its report dated 17.01.2012 has reported that the compromise has been voluntarily arrived at between the parties. Statements of the parties have also been sent to this Court along with the said report.

¶21

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶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

CRM No. M 24505 of 2011 3

¶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 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.”

¶27

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court, authenticating the factum of the said compromise, 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.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 64 dated 11.06.2011 (P1) under Section 420/120-B IPC, Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶29

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶31

03.04.2012 mohan

Raman Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

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

Gulzar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sukhjinder Singh @ Rinka Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Varinder Singh Vs State of Haryana