Allowed

Manjit Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Apr 2012CRM-M/26820/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a non-compoundable FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings, subject to revival of the case if third-party victims object.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.187 dated 26.5.2011 and all subsequent proceedings are quashed, subject to revival if Indu Lekha and Vipin Kumar claim to be aggrieved parties.

Manjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-26820 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.4.2012

¶3

Manjit Kaur and others

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. S.K. Bokolia, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.187 dated 26.5.2011 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar City and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

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

¶16

The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRM M-26820 of 2011

¶19

admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said reply, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶20

However, learned State counsel submits that as per the FIR Indu Lekha and Vipin Kumar are also the aggrieved parties.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have disputed the said statement and state that respondent No.2 is the only aggrieved person. It is further stated by them that in case Indu Lekha and Vipin Kumar come forward to state that they are also the aggrieved parties, the present case can be revived.

¶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 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:-

¶23

“ 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 non-compoundable

¶24

CRM M-26820 of 2011 -3offences 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.”

¶25

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as

¶26

under:-

¶27

“ 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.”

¶28

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, 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.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.187 dated 26.5.2011 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶30

CRM M-26820 of 2011

¶31

-4-

¶32

However, in case Indu Lekha and Vipin Kumar come

¶33

forward to state that they are also the aggrieved parties and object to the quashing of the FIR, the present case shall stand revived.

¶34

16.4.2012 rajeev

¶35

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Manjit Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Kaur 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

Jograj Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Arun Nagar Vs State of Haryana

Pankaj Threja Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kunal Bhasin and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab etc.

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab