Allowed

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2015CRM-M/31363/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed an FIR involving allegations of forgery and land usurpation. The court held that the inherent powers to quash proceedings should not be limited by Section 320 Cr.P.C. when a voluntary compromise resolves the dispute.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.82 dated 13.10.2011 under Sections 193,419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B IPC and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

CRM-M 31363/2014

¶2

110

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of decision:02.12.2015

¶5

Sukhwinder 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.TP Singh,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Mikhil Kad,AAG Punjab with HC Harjinder Singh Mr.Sandeep Singh,Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶13

Prayer is for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 13.10.2011 under Sections 193,419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B IPC, PS Behram,Distt.SBS Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶14

Vide order dated 11.9.2014 the parties were directed to get their statements recorded regarding genuineness of the compromise arrived at between them.

¶15

In compliance thereof, now learned JMIC,SBS Nagar vide his report dated 29.1.2015 (taken on record as Mark-A) has reported that the compromise arrived at between the parties is voluntary with free consent.

¶16

Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Harjinder

¶17

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.02 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

¶18

CRM-M 31363/2014

¶19

110

¶20

Singh states that the case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence.

¶21

The dispute herein relates to forging of power of attorney allegedly executed by complainant and subsequent attempt to usurp the agriculture land of the complainant.

¶22

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

¶23

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:-

¶24

“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

¶25

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of2015.12.02 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

CRM-M 31363/2014

110

justice.”

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

¶30

Nikhil Merchant v Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Madan Mohan Abot v State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 , the relevant extract of which is as under:-

¶34

“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.”

¶35

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

¶36

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.02 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

¶37

CRM-M 31363/2014

¶38

110

¶39

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.

¶40

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.82 dated 13.10.2011 under Sections 193,419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B IPC, PS Behram,Distt.SBS Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶41

02.12.2015. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

¶42

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.02 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Lal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Narender Kumar Jain Vs State of Haryana

Nikhil Brar @ Raja Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vinod Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balveer Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.