Quashed

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2014CRM-M/1737/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. No. 1737 of 2014, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act based on a verified compromise between the petitioner and the complainant, citing Section 482 Cr.P.C. and precedents allowing quashing in non-heinous disputes settled out of court.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 72 dated 22.3.2010 under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and all consequential proceedings over the petitioner were quashed.

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-1737 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-1737 of 2014 Date of Decision:-15.09.2014

Jarnail Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Gurvir Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State.

¶13

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.72 dated 22.3.2010, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶15

The FIR was registered on the complaint made by Som Lal Sarpanch dated 3.3.2010 with the allegations that Jarnail Singh had unrooted the government bricks of the rasta and has illegally installed sewerage and submersible bore in the rasta. After framing of charges, the matter has now been compromised.

¶16

In compliance of order dated 25.2.2014, the parties appeared

¶17

VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-1737 of 2014

¶19

-2-

¶20

before the trial Court. As per the status report, the complainant Som Lal Sarpanch appeared before the trial Court on 18.3.2014 and got recorded her statement to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused vide compromise Mark-A. He identified his signatures and does not want to pursue the above said FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed. The compromise Mark-A has been witnessed by Balbir Singh and Harbhajan Singh. Statements of Balbir Singh and Harbhajan Singh have also been recorded to the same effect. Statement of petitioner Jarnail Singh was also recorded on 18.3.20145 to the same effect. After recording the statements of the parties, the compromise is held to be genuine.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State informs the Court that the compromise has been effected between the parties.

¶22

Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶23

“26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :-

¶24

VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-1737 of 2014

¶26

-3-

¶27

“The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”

¶28

The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶29

The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social emity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and

¶30

VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

Criminal Misc. No. M-1737 of 2014

¶32

-4-

¶33

predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.”

¶34

The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution.

¶35

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a

¶36

case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

¶37

“1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction.

¶38

It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise.

¶39

Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which

¶40

VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

Criminal Misc. No. M-1737 of 2014

¶42

-5-

¶43

the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.”

¶44

Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.72 dated 22.3.2010, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.

¶45

The petition stands disposed of.

¶46

September 15, 2014 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶47

VIJAY ASIJA 2014.09.18 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Raj Singh Vs Santosh Saini & Ors.

Rimpaljit Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab &Ors

Ashok Kumar @ Happy Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Khajani Devi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Ishar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Shibo and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.