Allowed

Balram & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Mar 2013CRM-M/3604/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pursuant to a compromise under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court quashed an FIR and all subsequent proceedings for offences including Section 3 of the S.C./S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act, holding that non-compoundable offences can be quashed if the settlement is just and fair.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 287 dated 3.8.2012 registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal for offences under sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 506 IPC read with section 149 IPC and section 3 of the Scheduled Cast

Balram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-3604 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-3604 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 25^th , 2013

¶5

Balram and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others. .... Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶7

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶8

Present Mr. V.S.Mandhan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. S.S.Nara, Senior D AG, Punjab, for the State.

¶10

Mr. K.B.Sidhu, , Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶11

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶12

Balram and others, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 287 dated 3.8.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 506 read with section 149 IPC and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same

¶13

Crl. Misc. No.M-3604 of 2013

¶14

¶15

on the basis of compromise dated 22.9.2012 (Annexure P2).

¶16

While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 08.03.2013 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal has sent his report in this regard. He has reported that he has recorded the statements of the parties in support of the compromise and has found that their statements are voluntary and without any influence or pressure.

¶17

It is common knowledge that decisions rendered by the courts in adversarial system would leave one or the other of the parties unsatisfied. Sometimes, none of the two is satisfied. The compromise arrived at between the parties washes away all the grievances of the warring factions and pave way for normal relations in future between them. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. A Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with regard to the other non-compoundable offences:-

¶18

“29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can

¶19

Crl. Misc. No.M-3604 of 2013

¶20

¶21

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 non compoundable 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.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me a latest decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9 . It was a case for an offence punishable under section 394 IPC and was not less serious than the case in hand. In that case, FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶23

The FIRs/complaints in non-compoundable offences could, therefore, be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is so because after compromise, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak. However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. The compromise in hand not only satisfies the above said requirements, but also appears to be securing the ends of justice. I, therefore, find that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without their being any pressure on anyone. Hence, the petition is allowed and FIR No.287 dated 3.8.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 506 read with section 149

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-3604 of 2013

¶25

¶26

IPC and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.

¶27

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶28

March 25^th , 2013 som

Balram & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram & Ors. v. State of Haryana and 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

Bachittar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Lila Singh Fauji and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pavitter Singh Vs State of Punjab