Allowed

Kulwinder Kaushal @ Happy v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Aug 2017CRM-M/12248/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing a DDR and ancillary proceedings arising from a cross-version incident. Quashing was based on a voluntary compromise between parties, relying on precedent that such resolutions enhance social amity and fall within the grace of Section 482.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. No. 48 and DDR No. 26 along with all ancillary proceedings were quashed.

Kulwinder Kaushal @ Happy Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-12248 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-12248 of 2017 DATE OF DECISION :- August 18, 2017

¶5

Kulwinder Kaushal @ Happy ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

¶9

Present :- Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

None for respondent no.2. ***

¶12

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of DDR No. 26 dated 20.05.2012 under Sections 341, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Balachaur containing cross version of the incident regarding which F.I.R. No. 48 dated 19.05.2012 under sections 325, 323, 341, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at that very police station.

¶13

Petitioner Kulwinder Kaushal @ Happy, who is accused in the cross version by way of filing the present petition prays that the DDR in question along with all ancillary proceedings be quashed in view of compromise effected between the parties. Further more co-accused of petitioner are stated to have been acquitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur.

¶14

Parvinder Singh 2017.08.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CRM-M-12248 of 2017 2

¶16

On notice, State of Punjab appeared through Assistant Advocate General whereas respondent no. 2 appeared through counsel Mr. Jagjot S. Sidhu.

¶17

Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant-respondent no.2 admitted the factum of compromise between the parties, as such parties were directed to put in appearance before Illaqa Magistrate having jurisdiction over Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar within 15 days from receipt of certified copy of the order to get their statements recorded and then Illaqa Magistrate was required to send report to this Court. It was so done by order dated 31.5.2017. The parties put in appearance before SDJM, Balachaur, who has sent his report to the effect that parties had come present and suffered statements voluntarily, without any pressure regarding compromise effected between them and that compromised the residue with the intervention of respectable of locality and family members. Though it has been reported that petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, however, vide order dated 31.5.2017 it has been observed that no coercive means would be adopted against the petitioner till next date of hearing. Date of order dated 31.5.2017 wrongly typed be read as 1.6.2017 vide order dated 6.7.2017.

¶18

Complainant-injured Sukhwinder Singh in his statement recorded before SDJM, Balachaur has admitted the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties in cross version with the intervention of respectables of locality and family members. The other person injured in the incident namely Ms. Roop Rani is stated to have expired. In terms of the judgment (Annexure P3), co-accused of present

¶19

Parvinder Singh 2017.08.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM-M-12248 of 2017

¶21

¶22

petitioner namely Rajvir Singh, Dalvir Singh, Ravinder Singh, Abhishek, Harwinder Singh, Ravi Kaushal and Kulwinder Kaushal are shown to have been acquitted by SDJM, Balachaur vide judgment dated 1.12.2014.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, besides going through the record.

¶24

Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, which appears to have been arrived at between them voluntarily without any threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in para 28, it has been held as under :-

¶25

“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 amity 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.

¶26

Parvinder Singh 2017.08.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-12248 of 2017

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

The compromise is in the interest of peace and tranquility in the

¶31

society and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR as well as DDR and ancillary proceedings exercising power under Section 482

¶32

Cr.P.C., it appears to be a

¶33

fit case to exercise such powers.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid F.I.R. along with ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶35

(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE

¶36

August 18, 2017 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶37

Parvinder Singh 2017.08.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Kulwinder Kaushal @ Happy v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwinder Kaushal @ Happy 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

Charanjit Singh Dhami Vs State of Punjab and Another

Lachhman Vs State of Haryana

Mahesh Arora Vs State of Haryana

U T Chandigarh Vs Naveen Kumar

Avtar Lal @ Avtar Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Jitender Kumar Vs State of Haryana