SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 9 July, 2018

CRM-M No. 43969 of 2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 43969 of 2016
DATE OF DECISION :- July 09, 2018

Bhupinder Singh …Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:- Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate
for Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. I.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent no.2.
***

Petitioner – Bhupinder Singh has brought the instant petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 65 dated 7.7.2015, for

offences under Sections 498A, 406, 313, 120B IPC, registered at Police

Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, against him, alongwith

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise,

stated to have been effected between him and complainant Karamjit Kaur-

arrayed as respondent No.2.

When the petition came up for hearing on 8.12.2016, notice of

motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 – State of Punjab

through State counsel, whereas respondent No.2 through Mr. I.S. Dhaliwal,

Advocate had put in appearance. Then in light of the contention that parties

have since effected compromise, they were directed to put in appearance

1 of 3
22-07-2018 00:47:00 :::
CRM-M No. 43969 of 2016 2

before the trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to

compromise and the trial Court was directed to send a report to this Court.

Report has been received from Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Gidderbaha, in terms of which complainant Karamjeet Kaur and accused,

namely, Bhupinder Singh, had appeared there and their statements were

recorded, in terms of which they have admitted to have entered into a

voluntary compromise, with free will, without any pressure, coercion or

undue influence. Further, complainant has stated that she has no objection

if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record

to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the

parties. It has been reported that no accused has been declared proclaimed

offender in the FIR in question. Alongwith the report statement of the

complainant and the accused have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State

counsel, besides going through the record.

Marriage between the parties dissolved by a decree of divorce

by mutual consent. Cancellation report against the petitioner has been filed.

The challan is yet to be filed. The dispute between the parties has been

resolved amicably, which appears to have been arrived at between them

voluntarily without any threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the

authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab

and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in para 28, it has been

held as under :-

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine

2 of 3
22-07-2018 00:47:02 :::
CRM-M No. 43969 of 2016 3

qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the

soul of justice and if the power under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a

compromise which, in turn, enhances the social

amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest

hour of justice”.”

It has been observed that High Court has power to quash

prosecution in order to achieve ends of justice and to prevent abuse of

process of law. Though such powers are unlimited but those are to be

exercised sparingly and with utmost care and caution. Though there is no

statutory bar which can effect the inherent power of High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the

society and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary

proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a

fit case to exercise such powers.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR

alongwith ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
July 09, 2018
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
22-07-2018 00:47:02 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation