Vishal Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jul 2010
- Bench
- NIRMALJIT KAUR
Outcome
Allowed
Both the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 307, 338, 382, 448, 452, 506
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The present petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.…
Judgment
Mr. D S Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM M 1705 of 2010 and for the complainant/Respondent No. 2 in CRM M 906 of 2010 Mr. Pratap S Mann, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM M 906 of 2010 and for the complainants/respondents No. 2 to 4 in CRM M 1705 of 2010 Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.-
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The present petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No. CRM M 1705 of 2010 2 104 dated 02.03.2009 under Sections 307, 382, 452, of Indian Penal Code and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, District Amritsar as well as cross version case registered in the aforesaid FIR vide DDR No. 37 dated 29.07.2009 under Sections 448, 506 of Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are that complainant-Arun Kumar Sethi executed an agreement to sell dated 16.11.2007 in favour of petitioner -Vishal Singh and the aforesaid agreement remained in possession of the petitioner along with the original sale deed and other relevant documents of House bearing No. 56 and MCA No. F-7/127, measuring about 200 square yards situated in the area of Kashmir Avenue, Amritsar.
There arose a dispute between the parties which resulted into filing of present FIR. The matter was enquired into by SP (D), Amritsar (Rural) and offence was reduced to Section 338 IPC only against Vishal Singh and a cross case in the aforesaid FIR was also registered against Arun Kumar Sethi and others vide DDR No. 37 dated 29.07.2009 under Section 448, 506 IPC. Now, with the intervention of respectables of both the parties, the matter has been compromised vide compromise deed (Annexure P-3). Both the parties have got recorded their statements in Court today that the matter has been compromised amicably between them. The required documents have been handed over to Arun Kumar Sethi in pursuance to the said compromise. They shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromised deed. They have no objection if the aforesaid FIR as well as counter version case are quashed. Reply by way of affidavit of Lakhbir Singh, PPS Deputy Superintendent of Police, North Amritsar on behalf of respondent No.
1 has been filed in CRM M1705 M of 2010. It is stated in the reply that on the CRM M 1705 of 2010 3 statement of Arun Kumar, case FIR No. 104 dated 02.03.2009 was registered against Vishal Singh under Section 307, 382, 452 IPC and Section 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar District Amritsar. However, later on offence under Section 307, 382, 452 IPC and Section 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act were deleted with the approval of Senior Officers. It is also stated that on the basis of enquiry conducted by SP(D), Amritsar Rural, an offence under Section 338 IPC was added against the petitioner. 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 observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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 CRM M 1705 of 2010 4 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.
Operative part
This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Moreover, as per the reply of the State, Sections 307, 382, 452 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act stand deleted. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. Both the parties have no objection if the said FIR as well as counter version case is quashed. Thus, in view of the well settled proposition of law, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR, cross version and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. Accordingly, FIR No. 104 dated 02.03.2009 under Sections 307, 382, 452, of Indian Penal Code and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, District Amritsar as well as cross version case registered in the aforesaid FIR vide DDR No. 37 dated 29.07.2009 under Sections 448, 506 of Indian Penal Code and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Both the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Copy of this order be placed on the connected case.
30.07.2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Both the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 338, 382, 448, 452, 506; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 25, 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 30 Jul 2010. 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.