Partly allowed

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2012CRM-M/6972/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of an FIR in a theft and cheating case under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court, finding a valid compromise between the petitioner and complainants evidenced by trial court statements and a compromise deed, held that the prosecution deserved to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.49 dated 25.07.2000 and all subsequent proceedings; acquittal of the petitioner-accused.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-6972 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-6972 of 2010(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:23.04.2012

¶6

Harpreet Singh ......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶12

Mr.M.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶15

Tersenessly, the facts, which require to be noticed, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, on 28.03.1999, complainants Lal Singh and Lachhman Singh, respondent Nos.2 and 3(for brevity the complainants”) purchased a Maruti Gypsy vehicle bearing registration No.HYQ 3006 from Wanjar Singh son of Sajwal Singh, resident of village Pere Ke Uttar, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Moga, through a car dealer of car bazaar and paid Rs.92,000/- as its price to the dealer. Petitioner-accused Harpreet Singh son of Visakha Singh, was working as a partner with the complainants, but later on he was removed from the partnership, after settling the accounts.

¶16

According to the prosecution that, the petitioner-accused committed the theft of documents of the Gypsy vehicle and got it transferred in his own name on 01.05.2000, after committing the forgery of affidavit and the documents. In the

¶17

Criminal Misc.No.M-6972 of 2010 2

¶18

background of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of FIR No.49 dated 25.07.2000(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 379 IPC, by the police of Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, as depicted hereinabove.

¶19

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the accused was accordingly charge-sheeted by the trial Court, for the commission of indicated offence. Thereafter, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

¶20

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, at the intervention of Members Panchayat and respectables of the village, by virtue of compromise-deed dated 26.02.2010(Annexure P-2).

¶21

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioner has preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that they have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any influence. They are closely related and want to live peacefully. Now, they have no grudge against each other. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) registered against him and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner indicated hereinabove.

¶22

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Mahesh Grover, J.) passed the following order on January 09, 2012:-

¶23

“Adjourned to 20.3.2012.

¶24

In the meantime, parties are directed to present themselves before the Trial Court on 17.2.2012 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to the compromise. The Trial Court is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to

¶25

Criminal Misc.No.M-6972 of 2010

¶26

¶27

know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The Trial Court is further directed to send a report alongwith statements of the parties with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing.”

¶28

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court submitted its report dated 10.03.2012, which in substance is as under:-

¶29

“It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case Lal Singh S/o Puran Singh S/o Gurdit Singh, r/o Adarsh Nagar, Mandi Nihal Singh Wala, Contractor, complainant in Crl. Misc. No. M-6972 of 2010 in his statement recorded on oath stated that on 26.2.2010, he and Lachhman Singh S/o Karam Singh have effected compromise with accused Harpreet Singh S/o Visakha Singh resident of Nihal Singh Wala, as they are relatives and they want to live peacefully together. Now there is no grudge in their mind against each other. This compromise has been effected between them without any pressure or coercion in any manner. Complainant Lachhman Singh S/o Karam Singh S/o Attar Singh, Contractor, resident of Nihal Singh Wala also suffered statement that on 26.2.2010, he and Lal Singh S/o Puran Singh have effected compromise with accused Harpreet Singh S/o Visakha Singh R/o Nihal Singh Wala, as they are relatives and they want to live peacefully together. Now there is no grudge in their mind against the accused person. This compromise has been effected between them without any pressure or coercion in any manner.

¶30

On the other hand, Harpreet Singh S/o Visakha Singh, resident of Nihal Singh Wala in his statement recorded on oath has stated that on 26.2.2010 his compromise has been effected with the complainant Lal Singh S/o Puran Singh, Lachhman Singh S/o Puran Singh(sic.) Karam Singh with the intervention of the respectables of Nihal Singh Wala, as they are relatives and they want to live peacefully together. Now there is no grudge in their mind against each other. This compromise has been effected between them without any pressure and coercion in any manner.

¶31

I have personally heard both the parties and have gone through the above statements suffered by parties from which it is evident that both the parties have effected compromise with their free consent without any

¶32

Criminal Misc.No.M-6972 of 2010

¶33

¶34

influence and due to this compromise enmity arose between the parties has finished. So, compromise is in the interest of both the parties.

¶35

In this way, I have come to the conclusion that parties with their free consent and voluntarily effected the compromise. Compromise is valid as the same has been effected without any influence, pressure and sweet will of the parties.”

¶36

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes by means of compromise-deed(Annexure P-2) and report of the trial Court.

¶37

Such, thus, being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

¶38

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶39

The law with regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties by virtue of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR(Criminal) 9, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶40

The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that

¶41

¶42

Criminal Misc.No.M-6972 of 2010

¶43

the power under Section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement within the framework and restriction described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶44

As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free consent and without any kind of pressure, with the intervention of respectables of the village. They are closely related and want to live peacefully. Now, they have no grudge against each other. The complainants have already received the compensation in this regard from the petitioner-accused. The complainants have no objection if the said FIR registered against the petitioner is quashed. The version in regard to the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the trial Court in its indicated report. Therefore, to me, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this relevant behalf.

¶45

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.49 dated 25.07.2000(Annexure P-1) and all other

¶46

Criminal Misc.No.M-6972 of 2010 6

¶47

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. The petitioner-accused is accordingly acquitted of the charge framed against him, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶48

April 23, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Singh 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

Harjinder Singh Dhillon Vs Pb State Electricity Board and Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Daljeet Kaur and Anr. Vs Registrar of Marriage , Jalandhar

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh