Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR based on a compromise. The court, relying on trial court findings of a voluntary settlement and precedents allowing compromise quashing, quashed the FIR and proceedings.
FIR No. 72 dated 13.05.2008 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.
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.
CRM No. M 36229 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M 36229 of 2011 Date of decision: 01.02.2012
Golu Singh and others
. .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State
None for respondents No. 2 to 5
-.-
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 72 dated 13.05.2008 under Section 452, 354, 323, 324, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, P S Dirba, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 29.10.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.
CRM No. M 36229 of 2011 2
Vide this Court's order dated 01.12.2011, the parties wer5e4 directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.01.2012 and simultaneously the trial Court was also directed to submit a report after going onto the veracity and validity of the compromise deed dated 29.10.2011.
In pursuance to the said order, now the District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide Endst. No. 374 dated 17.01.2012 has forwarded the report dated 14.01.2012 of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sunam, wherein, it is mentioned that as per the statements of the parties, it appears that the parties have arrived at volunteer compromise without any coercion and out of free will.
From the above report, it is clear that the parties have amicably resolved the matter.
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 observed as under:-
“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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”
CRM No. M 36229 of 2011 3
The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-
“6. We need to emphasize 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.”
Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court, admitting the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 72 dated 13.05.2008 under Section 452, 354, 323, 324, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, P S Dirba, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
01.02.2012 mohan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed in view of a valid compromise arrived at between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherApplied¶24
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabApplied¶27
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Golu Singh and others
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
