Allowed

Satnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2012CRM-M/4976/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings after the complainant filed an affidavit stating that the parties had amicably compromised the matter and no objection was raised.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 103 dated 02.06.2011 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same were quashed.

Satnam Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 4976 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 4976 of 2012 Date of decision: 23.04.2012

¶4

Satnam Singh and another ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab

¶11

Mr. Mandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 103 dated 02.06.2011 under Section 406/498-A IPC, Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 30.11.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.

¶18

Complainant-Harpreet is present in Court along with her

¶19

CRM No. M 4976 of 2012 2

¶20

counsel. She filed her affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that aforesaid FIR was got registered by her. Now with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been compromised and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶21

Since the parties have amicably compromised the matter, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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.”

¶24

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶25

Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶26

“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

¶27

CRM No. M 4976 of 2012 3

¶28

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.”

¶29

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶30

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant, 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.

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 103 dated 02.06.2011 under Section 406/498-A IPC, Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶32

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶34

23.04.2012 mohan

Satnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Kulwinder Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Paramjeet & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Virender Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Amarjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baljeet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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