Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 336
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 2424. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in…
Judgment
Present: Mr. R.S.Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. B.K.Bagri, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No. 11 dated 27.2.2011 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 336, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Old Shalley, District Gurdaspur. Vide order dated 21.3.2011, the Area Magistrate was directed to send the report with regard to the validity of the compromise (Annexure P-2) after recording the statements of the concerned parties. The Area Magistrate has reported that the compromise has been affected between the parties. Statements of the parties were recorded by the Area Magistrate. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-8600 of 2011 -2 - Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:- “23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?
Operative part
On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit Crl. Misc. No. M-8600 of 2011 -3 - filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 11 dated 27.2.2011 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 336, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Old Shalley, District Gurdaspur is quashed. July 19, 2011 Gurpreet (SABINA) 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
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 336; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 25, 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Jul 2011. The bench was SABINA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.