Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2012CRM-M/26007/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition to quash FIR No.70 under Sections 382, 323, 34 IPC. Relying on settled law regarding compromises in criminal matters, the Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in the interest of justice and peace.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.70 dated 31.8.2010 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Chasham Pal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-26007 of 2010

¶3

Date of Decision:17.2.2012

¶4

Chasham Pal Singh and others

¶5

.... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

.... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab.

¶11

¶12

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶16

The instant petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.70 dated 31.8.2010 registered under Sections 382,323,34 IPC Police Station Mataur, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶17

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. The matter has since been compromised due to the intervention of the respectable of the area. An affidavit (Annexure P-2) of respondent No.2 as well as compromise deed (Annexure P-3) have also been placed on record in this regard.

¶18

While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 7.9.2010, following order was passed:

¶19

“This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.70 dated 31.8.2010 on the basis of compromise P-2 & P-3.

¶20

Notice of motion.

¶21

At this Stage, Mr. K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant. The complainant, in person, is present in the Court. The affidavit on behalf of the complainant has been filed in the

¶22

CRM M-26007 of 2010 -2-

¶23

Court today. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant prays for time to file the affidavit of Anjali, who is the affected person. May do so before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 5.10.2010.

¶24

The parties are directed to be present on the next date of hearing.”

¶25

Thereafter, vide order dated 3.11.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 16.11.2011 and the trial Court was directed to record a finding whether any volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the report in this regard was called for.

¶26

In pursuance to the same, report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali has been received. As per the said report, the parties to the present litigation i.e. Anjali, Prabhdeep Singh, Chasampal Singh and Maneshar Singh appeared before the trial Court and got recorded their statement admitting the compromise but Gagandeep Singh, who is the first party, has not appeared.

¶27

Since Gagandeep Singh-Complainant has already appeared before this Court vide order dated 7.9.2010 and his affidavit has already been placed on record admitting the factum of compromise and it was Anjali, who is also the affected party and was required to appear either before this Court or the trial Court and as now she has appeared before the trial Court and has also admitted the factum of compromise as per the report received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised.

¶28

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:-

¶29

CRM M-26007 of 2010 -3-

¶30

“ 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.”

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

“ 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 technicalities of the law.”

¶34

In view of the settled position of law and in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. The compromise is entered into without any pressure.

¶35

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No.70 dated 31.8.2010 registered under Sections 382,323,34 IPC Police Station Mataur, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

¶36

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶37

17.2.2012 rajeev

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chasham Pal 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

Mukesh Goel and Anr. Vs M/S Euro Containers

Subhash Nagpal & Anr. Vs Neeraj Kakkar

Avnish Jain Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rupinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

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

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