Allowed

Yadvinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jan 2012CRM-M/33653/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed two criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Quashing an FIR and all subsequent proceedings, including the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, based on a settlement between parties.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 396 dated 25.7.2000, order dated 8.1.2011 declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender, and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Yadvinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-33653 of 2011

¶3

Date of Decision:5.1.2012

¶4

Yadvinder Singh and another

¶5

.... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

.... Respondents

And

CRM M-30301 of 2011

Date of Decision:5.1.2012

Harjit Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶16

.... Respondents

¶17

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶18

Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶22

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

¶23

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶24

The instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.396 dated 25.7.2000 under Sections 353/332/186/506/34 IPC Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, District Patiala as well as order dated 8.1.2011 passed in the aforesaid FIR vide which petitioner-Harjit Singh was declared as proclaimed offender and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶25

CRM M-33653 of 2011

¶26

-2-

¶27

The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2-Nirvair Singh. However, due to the intervention of the respectable of the area, the matter has been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-3) has already been placed on record to this effect in Crl. M. No.M-33653 of 2011.

¶28

The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Nirvair Singh has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶29

Taking into account that the matter has been compromised between the parties, the fact that petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender should not stand in the way to accept the compromise and quash the FIR in the facts of the present case.

¶30

This Court in the case of Rajinder Singh @ Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and another 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 123 while quashing of criminal proceedings in a petition by a proclaimed offender held that a proclaimed offender cannot be granted indulgence, but having regard to the version of the complainant himself on oath before the Court, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶31

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:-

¶32

“29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or a ny other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Sections 482 of the Cr.P.C.”

¶33

-3-

¶34

CRM M-33653 of 2011

¶35

While relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others (Crl. Misc. No.10033 of 2009, decided on 29.7.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:-

¶36

“ Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceedings with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No.38 dated 5.7.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323,325,341,148 and 149 IPC (Annexure P- 1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.”

¶37

Similar view was also held by this Court in the case of

¶38

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and another (CRM No.M-1238 of 2007 decided on 29.1.2007).

¶39

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

¶40

-4-

¶41

CRM M-33653 of 2011

¶42

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:-

¶43

“ 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 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.”

¶44

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

¶45

2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶46

“ 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

¶47

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

¶48

CRM M-33653 of 2011 -5-

¶49

based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶50

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that he 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.

¶51

Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.396 dated 25.7.2000 under Sections 353/332/186/506/34 IPC Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, District Patiala as well as order dated 8.1.2011 passed in the aforesaid FIR vide which petitioner-Harjit Singh was declared as proclaimed offender and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶52

A copy of this order be placed in the connected case.

¶53

5.1.2012 rajeev

¶54

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Yadvinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadvinder Singh and Anr. 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

Aridaman & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Daljeet Singh @ Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Asha Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harminder Singh @ Sodhi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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