Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 July, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-11144 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-11144 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.07.2013.
Amritpal Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Nain, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1 - State.
None for respondent No.2.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Petitioner-Amritpal Singh, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.15 dated 13.02.2007, under Sections 307, 171-B, 188, 427, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier co- accused of the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. No. M-41274 of 2012, which was allowed vide order dated 04.03.2013 and said FIR was quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner at that time was behind the bars and compromise could not be effected with the present Rani Neetu 2013.07.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-11144 of 2013 (O&M) 2 petitioner. Subsequently, a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant and statements in this regard have been recorded by the trial Court as per directions issued by this Court on 09.04.2013.
A report in this regard along with the statements have been received, which are on record. It has been mentioned in the statement of complainant that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR. The compromise is as per his free will and is without any pressure.
In Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the Larger Bench of our own High Court has held that the High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), the Larger Bench 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 Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social enimity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice." Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlordtenant matters, Rani Neetu 2013.07.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-11144 of 2013 (O&M) 3 commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of litigation."
The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported as 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 42 emphasised para 6, which reads 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 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 utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of Rani Neetu 2013.07.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-11144 of 2013 (O&M) 4 the technicalities of the law."
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888, in para 6 and 11, held as under:-
"6. In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 761, this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying right formulate to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the fact and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution which invokes such powers.
11. In Madhavrao Jiwarjirao Scindia and others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., 1988 (1) RCR (Criminal) 565: (1988) 1 SCC 692, it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special Rani Neetu 2013.07.26 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-11144 of 2013 (O&M) 5 features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings."
Since the parties to the case have already sorted out their dispute by way of compromise and FIR qua to co-accused of the petitioner has already been quashed, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. Subsequently, statements regarding compromise have also been recorded.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.15 dated 13.02.2007, under Sections 307, 171-B, 188, 427, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner, namely, Amritpal Singh are quashed.
23.07.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.07.26 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh