Allowed

Surinder Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Nov 2012CRM-M/30532/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings. The court held that the offence, though non-compoundable, required quashing to prevent abuse of process as the parties had successfully compromised and the marital relationship was intact.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. FIR No. 69 dated 06.12.2010 and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Surinder Singh @ Jassi Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1 -

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-30532 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-30532 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.11.2012.

¶5

Surinder Singh @ Jassi

¶6

........Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Swapan Shorey, Advocate.

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 69 dated 6.12.2010, under Section 363, 366-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ' for short) registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of compromise dated 11.9.2012 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise. Petitioner has performed marriage with the daughter of the complainant and they have been blessed with a daughter out of the said wedlock.

¶17

Respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. He has also admitted the factum of marriage of his

¶18

-2 -

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-30532 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

daughter with the petitioner and the birth of their daughter. He has further submitted that he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. He has tendered his affidavit on record in this regard.

¶21

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶22

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶23

“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently

¶24

-3 -

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-30532 of 2012 (O&M)

¶26

lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶27

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”

¶28

In case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika

¶29

and another 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.13 has held as under:-

¶30

It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and

¶31

Crl. Misc. No. M-30532 of 2012 (O&M)

¶32

-4 -

¶33

the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in

¶34

Crl. Misc. No. M-30532 of 2012 (O&M) -5 -

¶35

declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.”

¶36

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶37

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 69 dated 6.12.2010, under Section 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶38

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶39

November 23, 2012 Gurpreet

Surinder Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Bhagat Singh Vs Satender Kumar

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Pooja Ghai Vs M/S Preview Fashions & Ors.

Jai Singh @ Jai Ram Vs State of Haryana and Another

Dharampal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Satish Kumar Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Anr.