The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise between parties, citing precedents on judicial settlement and inherent jurisdiction.
FIR No.06 dated 17.01.2012 and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1237 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-1237 of 2013 (O & M) Date of decision: 27 May, 2013.
Kashmir Singh and others
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been moved by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of case FIR No.06 dated 17.01.2012, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar, under Sections 326, 323, 148, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising thereof.
Vide order dated 19.03.2013, parties were directed to appear before trial Court on 08.04.2013 to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise and the trial Court was directed to send the report.
In compliance of order dated 19.03.2013, learned trial Court has submitted its report vide letter dated 15.05.2013 which indicates
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-1237 of 2013
that parties appeared before it and got recorded their respective statements with regard to validity of compromise. As per the report, compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner. Now no dispute is pending between the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties state that the trial is still pending till date and conviction has not been recorded by the Court.
Consequently, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, which has been affirmed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24.9.2012, by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases where this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdictional power to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in Gian Singh's case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal
Crl. Misc. No. M-1237 of 2013
-3-
case is put to an end.
The present petition is allowed. FIR No.06 dated 17.01.2012, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar, under Sections 326, 323, 148, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR also stand quashed.
It is, however, made clear that if the proceedings already stand concluded and conviction recorded in the present case, this order shall be treated non est and, thus, will have no bearing on the conviction and sentence order.
27 May, 2013 parveen kumar
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a genuine compromise serves the ends of justice without falling into exceptional cases.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings after settlement amounts to abuse of process of law.
Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429Relied on¶22
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24.9.2012Relied on¶22
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052Relied on¶22
Gian Singh's caseDistinguished¶22
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kashmir Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
