Allowed

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2012CRM-M/4946/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners sought quashing of cross-FIRs registered underSections 323/324/506/34 IPC and 325 IPC at Ludhiana based on a compromise. The court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C allow quashing to secure ends of justice and promote harmony, even in non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.39 dated 05.02.2009 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012 Date of Decision: 20.03.2012

¶5

Ashok Kumar and others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

¶9

Crl. Misc. No.M-5058 of 2012

¶10

Sunil Kumar and others

¶11

.....Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Punjab and others

¶14

....Respondents

¶15

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶16

Present:Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012 and for the respondents in Crl. Misc. No.M-5058 of 2012.

¶17

Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.M-5058 of 2012 and for the respondents in Crl. Misc. No.4946 of 2012.

¶18

Mr. D.S. Mann, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶22

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶23

¶24

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶25

Both the Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012 and Crl. Misc. No.M-

¶26

5058 of 2012 are, hereby, decided by passing a common Order.

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012

¶28

¶29

In the Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012 , the prayer has been made for quashing of cross version in case FIR No.39 dated 05.02.2009 registered under Sections 323/324/506/34 IPC and 325 IPC (Added in cross version vide DDR No.3 dated 07.02.2009) at Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana on the basis of compromise.

¶30

In the Crl. Misc. No.M-5058 of 2012 , the prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.39 dated 05.02.2009 under Sections 323/324/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana on the basis of compromise.

¶31

This is a case of version and cross version. The first version was got recorded by respondent No.4-Mihir Singh and cross version in the same FIR was got recorded by Madan Lal son of Des Raj. Both sides have filed the above mentioned petitions for quashing of their respective cases registered against each other.

¶32

Due to the intervention of the respectables and common known people as both the parties are the residents of adjoining Mohalla and one city, the matter has been compromised. As per the compromise, the parties have no objection in case FIR No.39 dated 05.02.2009 under Sections 323/324/506/34 IPC and 325 IPC (Added in cross version vide DDR No.3 dated 07.02.2009) and the said cross case registered at Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana is quashed. The affidavits of the injured and the complainant in both the FIR and the cross case have been placed on record affirming the factum of compromise.

¶33

The matter having been compromised, it is 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 the FIR.

¶34

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)

¶35

¶36

Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012

¶37

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 :-

¶38

“ 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.”

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

“ 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.”

¶42

The matter has been compromised. In view of the settled

¶43

¶44

Crl. Misc. No.M-4946 of 2012

¶45

position of law, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life.

¶46

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.39 dated 05.02.2009 under Sections 323/324/506/34 IPC and cross version in case FIR No.39 dated 05.02.2009 registered under Sections 323/324/506/34 IPC and 325 IPC (Added in cross version vide DDR No.3 dated 07.02.2009) at Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

¶47

A photocopy of this Order be placed on the file of another connected case.

¶48

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶49

20.03.2012 gurpreet

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

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

Chaman Lal Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mehar Chand Vs Uhbvnl & Ors.

Dharam Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Monika Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.