Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 July, 2008
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
---
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-6529 of 2008
Date of Decision: 17.7.2008
Sunil Kumar and others --- Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others --- Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
---
PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
---
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the F.I.R. No. 11 dated 10.1.2008, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station City Jagadhari, an extract of which has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, and all subsequent proceedings initiated under the said FIR.
It is manifest from the averments in the petition that a blood- spattered confrontation took place between the two sides, i.e. the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. As a result, the FIR in question Criminal Misc. No. M-6529 of 2008 Pa was lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. It is averred in the petition that with the intervention of the respectables of the area and the close relations, the parties have now patched up the dispute amicably so that peace and harmony is maintained. The compromise so arrived at between the parties has been reduced into writing, a copy whereof, which is dated 10.3.2008, has been placed on the record of this petition as Annexure P-4. Not only this, the petitioners have also placed on record the original affidavits of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also, i.e. Annexures P-5 and P-6 which indicate about the parties having come to terms reflected in the affidavit of the complainant-Parminder Singh, Annexure P-4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are none else, but the real nephews of the complainant.
In response to notice of motion, the respondents have put in appearance. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 came present in Court today and got their statements recorded. All of them stated in one tone that they have entered into compromise with the petitioners and they had no objection if the aforesaid FIR was quashed. They also stated that there was no threat or coercion on them to enter into compromise.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
From the facts and circumstances noticed above, a question would, thus, arise, whether the parties can enter into a compromise in a non-compoundable offence. This question has now been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR 1052 wherein it has been held that 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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-6529 of 2008 Pa In view of the above, I find that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. The compromise so arrived at is in the larger interest of the parties as well as the society. It will help promoting the peace and harmony between them in the future as well. The quashing of the FIR would, therefore, be in the best interest of the parties.
Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in question as well as the subsequent proceedings that arose in consequence thereof, are quashed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
July 17, 2008 JUDGE
*RKMALIK*