Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3112 (PNJ)

Harwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-11-19

JASWANT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. 1. Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No. 6 dated 5.1.2008 under Sections 307/341/323/427/ 34 IPC, P.S. Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib and the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. 2. As per allegations in the FIR, complainant-respondent No. 2 was taken by one Sachin on his motor cycle to village Poholo Majra, where he was allegedly hit from behind on his head with something. 3. Vide order dated 28.9.2010, this Court directed the learned trial Court to send report with regard to compromise in pursuance of which, a report/letter dated 16.10.2010 has been received from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which is taken on record as Mark-A. It is stated in the report that the complainant has arrived at a compromise with the accused- petitioners and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned state counsel, on instructions from HC Avtar Singh, states that he is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case. 5. Honble Supreme Court in (2003) 4 SCC 675, B.S Joshi & Others v. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 6. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read 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. The relevant extracts read 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." 7 Honble Apex Court in another case in J.T 2008(9) S.C 192, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshis case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. 8. Similar views were expressed by Honble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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 litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 9. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 9. Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that from the allegations in the FIR, prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out and further that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that 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 the FIR in the interest of justice. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 6 dated 5.1.2008 under Sections 307/341/323/427/34 IPC, P.S. Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Petition allowed.