Allowed

Narinder Gupta v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2012CRM-M/25892/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 465/420 IPC registered against the petitioner. The dispute originated from a matrimonial disagreement over a car financed through a loan. The parties had amicably settled the matter and the car was returned to the buy-back owner. Relying on Full Bench precedents, the cour

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 30 dated 4.5.2010 under Sections 465/420 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner.

Narinder Gupta Vs State of Punjab — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M- 25892 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M- 25892 of 2011(O & M) Date of decision:-17.01.2012

Narinder Kumar Gupta

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State.

¶13

Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 30 dated 4.5.2010 under Sections 465/420 IPC, registered at Police Station New Baradari, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise.

¶16

The present FIR was registered against the petitioner on the statement of complainant. As per FIR, the dispute is with regard to a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.PB-08-MA-7904. Petitioner and Baljinder Kaur were earlier married and they purchased the said car on 21.9.2007 from Lovely Autos amounting to Rs.2,80,090/- by paying down payment of Rs.65,000/- and remaining was financed from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company. The first instalment of Rs.5490/- was made on 25.9.2010 and total 23 instalments up till

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M- 25892 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

25.8.2009 were cleared. In the month of January 2009 the car was taken by the petitioner. Thereafter, in March 2009 there was a panchayati divorce in between petitioner and Balwinder Kaur and she asked the petitioner to return her car but he did not return the same. The petitioner had sold the same to respondent No.2. Baljinder Kaur claimed that she has not given any right to the petitioner to sell the Car and she alongwith petitioner sent 3-4 persons to the house of respondent No.2, who have caused insult and gave abuses to the complainant.

¶20

With the intervention of respectable, the parties have entered into compromise and the car has been returned to respondent No.2 and the matter has been amicably settled. The litigation between petitioner and his wife is pending in Civil Courts in relation to car also.

¶21

On notice, respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of short affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise, both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the affidavit (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition.

¶22

Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the

¶23

Criminal Misc. No. M- 25892 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶26

“26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :-

¶27

“The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”

¶28

The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶29

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 emity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters,

¶30

Criminal Misc. No. M- 25892 of 2011

¶31

-4-

¶32

commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.”

¶33

The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution.

¶34

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan

¶35

Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has

¶36

examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

¶37

“1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction.

¶38

Criminal Misc. No. M- 25892 of 2011

¶39

-5-

¶40

It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise.

¶41

Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.”

¶42

Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶43

Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 30 dated 4.5.2010 under Sections 465/420 IPC, registered at Police Station New Baradari, District Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

¶44

The petition stands disposed of.

¶45

January 17, 2012 Vijay Asija

¶46

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

Narinder Gupta v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Gupta v. State of Punjab

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

Kewal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sehdev Arya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ramesh Bal Vs State of Haryana and etc.

Satish Kumar Vs HUDA & Ors.

Krishan & Ors. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Hsidc Vs M/S Bajaj Mechanicals Pvt. Ltd.