Allowed

Jagdev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2015CRM-M/18090/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR based on Sections 325/34 IPC. The court held that a genuine compromise without coercion justified quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure justice, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR no.103 dated 4.10.2014 under Sections 325/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom have been quashed.

Jagdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

CRM-M 18090/2015

¶2

115

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of decision:07.12.2015

¶5

Jagdev Singh and others

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr.Inderjit Singh Brar,Advocate for the petitioners. Mz.Rimplejeet Kaur,AAG Punjab Mr.IS Mann,Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶13

Prayer under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR no.103 dated 4.10.2014 under Sections 325/34 IPC,PS Sangat,Distt. Bathinda and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶14

Vide order dated 28.5.2015 parties were directed to get their statements recorded regarding genuineness of the compromise.

¶15

Now learned JMIC,Bathinda vide report dated 27.7.2015 (taken on record as Mark-A) has reported that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties genuinely without any pressure or coercion.

¶16

Learned State counsel on the basis of instructions received

¶17

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.08 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

¶18

CRM-M 18090/2015

¶19

115

¶20

from ASI Gurbag Singh, on the last date of hearing, states that charges are yet to be framed in the present case.

¶21

The dispute herein relates to alleged attack on the complainant and his son by the petitioners.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

“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 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.”

¶26

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.08 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

¶27

CRM-M 18090/2015

¶28

115

¶29

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

¶30

Nikhil Merchant v Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 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.

¶31

Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 , the relevant extract of which is as under:-

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.08 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

¶35

CRM-M 18090/2015

¶36

115

¶37

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.

¶38

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR no.103 dated 4.10.2014 under Sections 325/34 IPC,PS Sangat,Distt. Bathinda and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on, are quashed.

¶39

07.12.2015. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

¶40

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.08 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

Jagdev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev Singh 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

Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Jagpreet Singh @ Monu Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jyoti Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Satpal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Subash Bansal Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.