Quashed

Harbhajan Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab Deptt. of Home Affairs and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Apr 2013CRM-M/4390/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash FIR No.4 for cheating and criminal conspiracy, holding that under inherent powers, non-compoundable offences can be quashed if the compromise is voluntary, just and fair, securing the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.4 dated 3.1.2012 and all subsequent proceedings regarding sections 406, 420 read with section 120-B IPC were quashed.

Harbhajan Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-4390 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-4390 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 12^th , 2013

¶5

Harbhajan Kaur and another .... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

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?

¶10

Present Mr. R.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Anmol Grewal, AAG, Punjab, for the State.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

Harbhajan Kaur and Paramjit Singh alias Titu, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 3.1.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 406, 420 read with section 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2).

¶14

While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 27.03.2013 for getting their

¶15

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.M-4390 of 2013

¶17

statements recorded in support of the compromise. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur has sent her report in this regard. She has reported that she 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.

¶18

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:-

¶19

“29. 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

¶20

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-4390 of 2013

¶22

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.”

¶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.4 dated 3.1.2012 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Phillaur, District Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 406, 420 read with section 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.

¶24

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶25

April 12^th , 2013 som

Harbhajan Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab Deptt. of Home Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab Deptt. of Home Affairs 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

Balak Ram & Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs the Director Haryana State Board of Technical Education and Anr.

Shanti Devi & Anr. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Others

Jagdish & Anr. Vs the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & Anr.

M/S Jamindara Commission Agents Vs Hy. State Elecy. Mktng. and Anr.

Ishwar Chand Vs Hy. State Agri. Mktng. Board, Pkl. and Anr.