Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2012CRM-M/26476/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Section 3 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act based on a compromise with victims. Relying on case law allowing quashing for social harmony, the Single Judge held it a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.52 dated 12.08.2011 under Section 3 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Jagdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-26476 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.2.2012

¶3

Jagdev Singh and others

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.52 dated 12.08.2011 under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, due to the intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has already been placed on record in this regard.

¶17

Vide order dated 8.12.2011, notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 4.1.2012. The learned Illaqa Magistrate was further directed to record the statements of all the effected parties and shall record a finding whether any volunteer compromise has been arrived at between the parties and send its

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM M-26476 of 2011

¶20

report in this regard.

¶21

In pursuance to the same, report of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mansa, has been received. In the said report, it is submitted as under:

¶22

“Kindly refer to the subject cited above and it is intimated that as per directions of Hon'ble High Court, statement of parties was recorded in which they stated that they have compromised the matter and complainant made statement that accused did not utter any objectionable words against his caste and he has compromised the matter with them. Accused also made statement that they have compromised the matter with complainant.”

¶23

Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh

¶24

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:-

¶25

“ 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

¶26

CRM M-26476 of 2011 -3-

¶27

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.”

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

“ 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.”

¶31

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and report received from Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mansa, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

¶32

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.52 dated 12.08.2011 under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶33

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

¶34

17.2.2012 rajeev

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev 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.

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