Single Judge quashed an FIR under IPC Sections 353, 186, 332, and 333 reported in this High Court.
Petition allowed and FIR No. 304 dated 19.12.2010 and subsequent proceedings quashed in the interest of justice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-35023 of 2011
Date of Decision:5.1.2012
Harminder Singh @ Sodhi
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.304 dated 19.12.2010 registered under Sections 353/186/332/333 IPC Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar District Jalandhar, Punjab and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2Moti Ram. The matter has since been compromised. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record in this regard.
Vide order dated 21.11.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 30.11.2011. The said Court was further directed to record the statements of the parties and verify the genuineness of the compromise and submit its report to this Court.
In pursuance to the same, report of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, has been received. As per the said report, the statements of the parties have been recorded and the same have been sent to this Court alongwith the report. As per the statements of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine one and without any pressure or coercion.
The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh
CRM M-35023 of 2011
-2-
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:-
“ 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.”
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008
(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-
“ 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.”
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
CRM M-35023 of 2011
-3-
peace and harmony. The compromise is entered into without any pressure.
Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No.304 dated 19.12.2010 registered under Sections 353/186/332/333 IPC Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar District Jalandhar, Punjab and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.
5.1.2012 rajeev
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under Sections 353/186/332/333 IPC should be quashed in view of a genuine compromise between the parties.
Whether the Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a non-compoundable offence based on a settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶23
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶26
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harminder Singh
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
