CHANDIGARH (282) Didar Singh ingh and another CRM-M-36858-2022 Date of Decision:-May 23 & Ors. v. State of Punjab and an and d another 2012(10) SCC 303 & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Consequently, this petition is on is allowed. FIR No.20 dated
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALO E ALOK JAIN **** Present: Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocate for for the petitioners. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Hary , Haryana. Mr. I.P.S Bawa, Advocate for Ms. G.K. Sandhu, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** JAIN, J. (Oral) ALOK JAIN
The instant petition has been fil .C. een filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash quashing of FIR No.20 dated 13.02.2 323, 13.02.2021 under Sections 307, 323, 324 read wit ad with Section 34 of the Indian Pe ed at ian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Statio Station City Panjokhra, District Am d all ct Ambala (Annexure P-1), and all other subsequ ubsequent proceedings arising therefro f erefrom on the basis of the shape of affidavit date dated 29.04.2021 (Annexure P-2).
Keeping in view the fact th to a ct that the parties entered into a compromise, mise, this Court vide order dated 22.0 es to 22.08.2022 directed the parties to appear before before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Cou al Court for getting their statements recorded in t d in that regard. Pursuant thereto, a reto, a report dated 05.09.2022 has been received ceived from the Judicial Magistrate strate 1st Class, Ambala, stating that PARUL 2024.05.27 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-368 36858-2022 2 2 the comprom promise arrived at between the partie e is parties is voluntary and the same is without any p t any pressure, coercion or undue influ e influence.
Learned State Counsel and l and learned counsel appearing for respondents ents No. 2 and 3 admit the factum o t that tum of compromise and submit that they have no no objection to quashing of the FIR he FIR on that basis.
Perusal of the aforesaid report es port establishes that the parties have amicably sett ly settled their dispute, and continuan tinuance of criminal proceedings in such a situati situation will be an exercise in futili futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction a ion are bleak. The power under n be nder Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in ed in such matters. It has been held b ia in held by Supreme Court of India in cases Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and an d another 2012(10) SCC 303 and Narinder Sin r Singh and others v. State of Punj SCC Punjab and another 2014(6) SCC 406 that crim t criminal cases having overwhelming elmingly civil character, particularly those arising rising out of commercial transactions o ps or tions or matrimonial relationships or family disput disputes, should be quashed when th hen the parties have resolved their disputes amon s among themselves in a bona fide ma manner.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in th t in the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. L Vs. Laxmi Narayan” (2019) 5 SCC High SCC 688, has upheld that the High Court under under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash gs in quash the criminal proceedings in respect of no of non compoundable offences whic d do which are private in nature and do not have serio e serious impact on society.
Keeping in view the law laid dow aid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the afores aforesaid judgment, it is crystal clea e the al clear that the dispute where the wrong is bas is basically private or personal in al in nature and the parties have PARUL 2024.05.27 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document resolved their d their entire dispute, the High Court w on to ourt will be within its jurisdiction to CRM-M-368 36858-2022 3 3 quash the cri the criminal proceedings if it is know known that because of compromise arrived at be at between the parties, there is re is remote possibility of securing conviction of ion of the accused. In fact, in such c t has such cases, the Supreme Court has clearly obser observed that it would amount to nt to extreme injustices, if despite settlement h ent having been arrived at betwee between the parties, the criminal proceedings a ings are allowed to continue.
Consequently, this petition is on is allowed. FIR No.20 dated
13.02.2021 under Sections 307, 323, 324 read read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Code, 1860, registered at Police Sta strict ce Station City Panjokhra, District Ambala (Ann (Annexure P-1), and all other su her subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, ar are hereby quashed qua the petit nt of e petitioners, subject to payment of cost of Rs. Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by th the petitioners collectively and Rs. 25,000/- - to be deposited by respondent dents No.2 and 3 jointly within one month from to from today in Poor Patients Welfare F are Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. , 2024 May 23, 2024 Parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether Reportable:- Yes/No Yes/No (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE PARUL 2024.05.27 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 23 May 2024. The bench was JAIN.
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.