Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jun 2010
- Bench
- NIRMALJIT KAUR
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Complaint
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 320, 482
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 148, 149, 448, 452, 506
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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved…
Judgment
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for respondent No.2. ****
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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of Complaint No.33 dated 16.7.2009 under Section 3(V) and (X) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) and Sections 452/448/506/148/149 IPC filed in the Court of Ms. Monika Chohan, PCS, JMIC, Dasuya and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The complaint in question was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners armed with their respective weapons forcibly entered into his shop in order to dispossess him forcibly. Petitioner No.1 further gave abuses in order to insult him.
However, the matter has been compromised. Compromise has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. An affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise has also been placed on record. Separate statement of respondent No.2/complainant authenticating the compromise CRM M-9685 of 2010 -2- has also been recorded in the Court today. As per the compromise/affidavit, he has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed. It is further stated that the said compromise was entered into without any pressure and out of his own sweet will. 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 CRM M-9685 of 2010 -3- 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.” Taking into account the that the compromise has been effected between the parties vide compromise deed Annexure P-3, affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise and the statement of respondent No.2 stating before the Court that he has no objection if the complaint in question 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 Complaint No.33 dated 16.7.2009 under Section 3(V) and (X) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) and Sections 452/448/506/148/149 IPC filed in the Court of Ms. Monika Chohan, PCS, JMIC, Dasuya and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
30.6.2010 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 Complaint
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 320, 482; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 148, 149, 448, 452, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 30 Jun 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.