The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered for non-compoundable offences, holding that a voluntary compromise rendered the case fit for quashing to promote peace and justice.
The impugned FIR and all consequential 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10890 of 2014 Date of decision: July 25, 2014
Surinder Lamba and another
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta
Present: Mr. Haramanjit Singh Jugait, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Natang, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Varun Sharma, AAG, Punjab. None for respondent No.2.
Surinder Gupta, J
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.94 dated 18.9.2010 (Annexure P-1), registered for offence punishable under Sections 356/341/506/324/323/34 IPC at Police Station Rangar Nangal, Batala, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).
As per case of the prosecution, on 18.9.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. the complainant-respondent No.2 was going to Amritsar in his car bearing registration No.PB-02B-4221 and when he was near Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, the petitioners stopped him by bringing their car in front of the car of the complainant. The petitioners pulled the complainant-respondent out of the car and inflicted injuries to him. They also snatched mobile phone (Nokia 5230), gold chain and cash `1000.
Upon notice, Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. The trial court has sent its report dated 3.5.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature Kumar Deepakand without any pressure or influence. 2014.08.01 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-10890 of 2014
Learned State counsel has also not disputed the compromise (Annexure P/2).
The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned FIR is that the offence under Section 324/356 IPC are not compoundable. In case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 , Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offence is not compoundable.
In the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.
Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed. Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large. The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.
In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.
July 25, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge
Kumar Deepak 2014.08.01 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR registered under non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon a voluntary compromise.
Whether the dispute is of such a heinous nature that it cannot be settled by compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶20
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surinder Lamba
State of Punjab
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
