Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Nijjar, J.
Col.Shamsher Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46723 of 2000,
Decided On : DECEMBER 14, 2000
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR based on compromise - The court allowed the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 406/498-A IPC based on a compromise between the parties, even after the petitioners had been convicted. The court relied on its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and cited a similar decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maltesli Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 406/498-A IPC based on a compromise between the parties, even after the petitioners had been convicted.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings, based on the compromise between the parties. The appeal pending in the Court of Ms. Neelam Shangla, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, was also rendered infructuous.
Issues: Quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings based on compromise after conviction
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to order the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the compromise between the parties, citing a similar decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maltesli Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 406/498-A IPC were quashed. The appeal pending in the Court of Ms. Neelam Shangla, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, was also rendered infructuous.
S.S.Nijjar, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the FIR No. 879 dated 25.12.1995, under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, City Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise which has been entered into between the parties. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the compromise has been arrived at after the petitioners have been convicted. However, it is submitted that the conviction notwithstanding, this Court has the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to order the compounding of the offence. In support of this view, learned counsel cites Maltesli Chand and another v. State of Ra-jasthan, 1990(3) Recent C.R. 332, wherein the Honble Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, has permitted the compounding of the offence. In that case, the petitioners had been prosecuted under Section 307 IPC and had been convicted by the trial Court. The matter was compromised whilst the appeal was pending.
2. In view of the above, it would be necessary to examine the compromise between the parties. The parties are present in Court. The parties have been identified by their respective counsel. Smt. Sneh Kadan, who is present in Court, has stated that compromise has been entered into on her own will and that there is no coercion or undue influence. She further stated that she wants to put an end to the litigation.
3. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 879 dated 25.12.1995, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station, City Kamal as well & the subsequent proceedings i.e. conviction of the petitioners, are hereby quashed. Consequently, appeal pending in the Court of Ms. Neelam Shangla, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipal, is also rendered infructuous. The petitioners are at liberty to make an application for the formal withdrawal of the appeal mentioned above on the basis of this order. Copy dasti on payment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
