Neeraj Sahni & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 320, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 406, 420
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.…
Judgment
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ****
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.73 dated 30.7.2010 under Sections 406,420 IPC Police Station City Jagraon, Police District Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-1) has already been placed on record to this effect. The parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has already placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 admitting the factum of compromise.
Today he has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.3 to the same effect. As per the said affidavits, respondents No.2 and 3 CRM M-25498 of 2011 -2- have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ 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 CRM M-25498 of 2011 -3- litigation.
Operative part
This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 stating that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed, 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 FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.73 dated 30.7.2010 under Sections 406,420 IPC Police Station City Jagraon, Police District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
15.2.2012 rajeev ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 320, 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 406, 420.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 15 Feb 2012. The bench was NIRMALJIT KAUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.