Quashed

Satinder Pal Singh @Sunny and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2012CRM-M/24527/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash an FIR under Sections 420, 379, and 328 IPC where the parties had amicably settled the dispute and executed a compromise deed. Relying on settled precedents, the court quashed the FIR and discharged the accused to enable them to live in peace.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 127 dated 17.6.2012 and all consequent proceedings; petitioners discharged from the criminal case.

Satinder Pal Singh @Sunny and Anr. Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-24527 of 2012 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M-24527 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision:-24.9.2012

¶5

Satinder Pal Singh alias Sunny & Anr.

¶6

...Petitioners Versus

¶7

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶10

Present: Mr.S.P.S.Tinna, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Jasjit Singh, Advocate for Mr.K.B.Soi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶11

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶12

The compendium of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, in pursuance of complaint of complainant Karnail Singh-respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by virtue of FIR No.127 dated 17.6.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 379 and 328 IPC by the police of Police Station City-1, Abohar, Distt.Fazilka.

¶13

After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC against the petitioners-accused to face the trial for the pointed offences in

¶14

CRM No. M-24527 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶15

the Court.

¶16

During the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their dispute at the intervention of respectables, by way of compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure P3) in this relevant direction.

¶17

Having compromised the matter, 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 the complainant has lodged the indicated criminal case against them on account of some misunderstanding, which was later on sorted out with the intervention of respectable members of the society. They have entered into compromise (Annexure P2). They have redressed their grievance. The complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. He has also filed an affidavit (Annexure P3), reiterating the factum of compromise. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR and all consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.

¶18

During the course of preliminary hearing, the parties were directed to make their statements and trial Magistrate was asked to send his report with regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise, vide order dated 16.8.2012.

¶19

In compliance thereof, the SDJM Abohar submitted his report, bearing No.353 dated 13.9.2012, which, in substance, is as under:-

¶20

CRM No. M-24527 of 2012 (O&M) -3-

¶21

“In accordance with directions of Hon'ble High Court in afore cited Crl. Misc.Petition this Court has taken up case titled as State Versus Satvir Singh etc. bearing No.112-1 of 14.8.2012, FIR No.127 dated 17.6.2012 U/s 420, 379, 328 IPC PS City 1 Abohar on 11.9.2012 for recording the statements of parties on alleged compromise. The said case has been registered against the accused namely Satvir Singh and Satinderpal Sigh. Vide separate statement as recorded before Court (copy enclosed) it is stated by complainant Karnail Singh that with the intervention of panchayat he has compromised the matter with accused Satvir and Satinderpal and now he does not want to pursue with the present case. He has further made statement that in order to live peacefully in the society their compromise may be accepted. Similar statement has been made by both the accused facing trial before this Court (copy enclosed). They have proved the copy of compromise as Exh.P1 (Copy enclosed).

¶22

The afore mentioned FIR has been registered against the accused named above on the allegations that on 16.6.2012 the accused made son of complainant unconscious by serving something in cold drink and have withdrawn an amount of Rs.40,000/- fraudulently through the ATM of complainant lying with his son. The accused are further alleged to have stolen mobile phone make Nokia alongwith motor cycle make CT 100 bearing registration No.PB 15 C 4067 belonging to complainant party. Now the parties have fully entered into mutual settlement whereby they have effected compromise among them. The perusal of compromise Exh.P1 depicts that the interest of complainant seems to be financial loss suffered by him has been taken care off.

¶23

In the said back ground, the compromise so effected between the parties seems to be genuine without any sort of undue pressure or force.”

¶24

In this manner, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure P3), in this respect. He has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

¶25

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the

¶26

CRM No. M-24527 of 2012 (O&M) -4-

¶27

present case is, as to whether the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ?

¶28

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 prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between them.

¶29

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.

¶30

The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid 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 & control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in

¶31

CRM No. M-24527 of 2012 (O&M) -5-

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

As is evident from the record, that the parties have amicably settled their disputes at the instance of respectables. They have decided to live in peace and harmony in future. They do not want to take any legal action against each other. They shall abide by the terms & conditions of the compromise. The complainant has filed affidavit (Annexure P3), reiterating the factum of compromise. He has no objection if the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. The genuineness and validity of compromise has also been reiterated by the SDJM in his indicated report. Therefore, the compromise (Annexure P2) is in welfare & interest of the parties. 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.

¶35

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby

¶36

CRM No. M-24527 of 2012 (O&M) -6-

¶37

accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.127 dated 17.6.2012 (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed and the petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal case.

¶38

24.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

Satinder Pal Singh @Sunny and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satinder Pal Singh @Sunny and Anr. 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

Harender & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Harsh Thapar Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Alias Vicky Vs State of Haryana

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