SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Jagdeep Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-1539-2021
Decided On : 23-09-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Amit Rana, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners., for the Appellant; Mr. JS Arora, DAG, Punjab., Mr. Ranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2., for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compromise in modern society and the need to exercise the power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 323, 341, 506 IPC - 200 - The court referred to Sections 482, 320 of the Cr.P.C. and discussed the principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 as laid down in various judgments including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, and Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The court emphasized the importance of compromise in modern society and the need to exercise the power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 200, dated 02.08.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 of IPC, based on a compromise dated 25.12.2020. The affected parties had their statements recorded with regard to the compromise, and both the private parties had genuinely effected a compromise without coercion or undue influence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the pendency of the criminal litigation would be an abuse of process of law as the chances of conviction of the petitioners were bleak in view of the compromise between the private parties. The court accepted the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings based on the compromise.

Issues: The main issue was whether the pendency of the criminal litigation based on the FIR would be an abuse of process of law in view of the compromise between the private parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in various judgments including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, and Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh to exercise the power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Final Decision: The petition was accepted, and FIR No. 200, dated 02.08.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings were quashed based on the compromise dated 25.12.2020.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) - The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, for quashing of FIR No. 200, dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure P-1), for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 of IPC, at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 25.12.2020 (Annexure P-2).

2. Vide order dated 13.01.2021, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was to submit a report in this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2021, passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moonak, and as per report dated 16.03.2021, submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. The operative part of the report received from learned Court below is as under:-

    'It is submitted that after recording all these statements, the report as called from this Court is being submitted as under:

    (1) There are two accused arrayed as accused in this FIR namely Jagdeep Singh son of Bahadur Singh and Amandeep Singh son of Nazar Singh, both residents of village Gidriani, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.

    (2) The accused of this case has not been declared Proclaimed Offender.

    (3) The compromise appears to be genuine and voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.'

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise dated 25.12.2020 (Annexure P-2). At present, there remains no dispute amongst the private parties. He further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties, pendency of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law.

    5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent No.2, after going through the statements and the report received from learned Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise.

    6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has observed as under:

      '(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice'.

      (29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words:

      'The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.'

      (30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice.

      (31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

      (32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and o

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top