Allowed

Lovepreet Alias Lappi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Sept 2015CRM-M/15767/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 10 involving sections 307, 382, and others of the IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding inherent powers and personal nature of disputes, the court quashed proceedings based on a valid compromise. The trial court had reported that the settlement was voluntary and genuine.

What did the court decide?

FIR no.10 dated 4.2.2012 under Sections 307, 382, 341, 324, 34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Lovepreet Alias Lappi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

CRM-M 15767/2015

110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Date of decision:29.09.2015.

¶6

Lovepreet @ Lappi and others

¶7

.............Petitioners

¶8

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

.............Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr.Sandeep Singh Majithia,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu,Deputy Advocate General for State of Punjab with HC Krishan Lal Mr.Munish Raj,Advocate for complainant-respondent 2

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶14

Prayer under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR no.10 dated 4.2.2012 under Sections 307, 382, 341, 324, 34 IPC, PS City Malout, Distt.Shri Muktsar Sahib (P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 6.5.2015(P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Vide order dated 13.7.2015 parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. Trial Court was directed to satisfy itself regarding genuineness of the compromise.

¶16

In compliance of the said order now learned Trial Court vide its report dated 1.8.2015 has reported that it is satisfied that the

¶17

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.09.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

¶18

CRM-M 15767/2015 2

¶19

110

¶20

statements by the parties have been made voluntarily and the compromise has been arrived at without any pressure, coercion or threat.

¶21

The matter involved herein arises out of party faction between the rival parties, which, as noticed above stands amicably settled. In the facts of this case it is highly debatable if offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.

¶22

Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Krishan Lal states that after due investigations cancellation report has been prepared.

¶23

Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675, B.S.Joshi

¶24

and others v State of Haryana and another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶25

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 1052 has

¶26

held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extract reads as under:-

¶27

“The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is

¶28

that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can

¶29

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.09.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

CRM-M 15767/2015

110

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.”

¶34

Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T.2008(9) SC 192

¶35

Nikhil Merchant v Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

¶36

while relying upon its decision in B.S.Joshi' s case (supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.

¶37

Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in

¶38

Madan Mohan Abot v State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 , the

¶39

relevant extract of which is as under:-

¶40

“We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach toRAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI2015.09.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

CRM-M 15767/2015

110

the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶45

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

¶46

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR no.10 dated 4.2.2012 under Sections 307, 382, 341, 324, 34 IPC, PS City Malout, Distt.Shri Muktsar Sahib (P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶47

29.09.2015. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

¶48

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.09.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

Lovepreet Alias Lappi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovepreet Alias Lappi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Jumma Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Kumar Saini Vs State of Haryana

M/S Quantus Management Systems and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mithu Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.