High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jarnail Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 July, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 July, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                             ---


                 Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-10266 of 2008
                 Date of Decision: 17.7.2008


Jarnail Singh and another                 --- Petitioners

                       Versus

State of Punjab and others                --- Respondents

                             ---


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

                             ---

PRESENT: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate
         for the petitioners.

           Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate
           General, Punjab.

           Mr. Pankaj Sangari, Advocate
           for private respondents.

                             ---


AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of a complaint under

Sections 419/420/ 467/468/471/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, bearing

No. 166 dated 24.1.2004, a copy of which has been attached with the

petition as Annexure P-1, and all consequential proceedings arising there

from, pending in the court of Shri Sanjiv Joshi, Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Dhuri.

A criminal complaint, Annexure P-1, was filed by Kartar Singh,

who was originally arrayed as respondent No.2 in this petition but he

having died during the pendency of the petition, his legal representatives

were brought on record by order dated 29.5.2008. It is averred that the
Criminal Misc.No. 10266-M of 2008 Pa

petitioners and respondent No.2 have now entered into compromise and

none of the parties is having any grievance or grudge against any of

them. A copy of the compromise has also been placed on record as

Annexure P-2. It is further averred that in view of the compromise, the

complainant-respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the complaint and

a translated copy of an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant has been

appended to the petition as Annexure P-3.

In response to notice of motion, the respondents have put in

appearance in the court and they came present in person also. They got

recorded their statements in the context of the compromise having taken

place on behalf of Kartar Singh, the complainant, and the petitioners.

Balbir Kaur is the wife and Charanjit Kaur is the daughter of Kartar Singh

whereas Makhan Singh is the son of Amarjit Kaur daughter of Kartar

Singh. All of them have placed on record their respective affidavits,

which, during the course of their statements in the Court, have been

marked as Mark ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. In their statements, they deposed in

unison that they have compromised the matter without any pressure or

threat from any side. All of them deposed that their respective affidavits

on record contain their signatures/thumb impressions.

In view of the above, the question that would arise is,

whether a complaint in respect of non-compoundable offences can be

quashed. This question has been answered in the positive by a Full Bench

of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and

another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 wherein it has been observed

that the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-

compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 320

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to prevent the abuse of law

and to secure the ends of justice.

Criminal Misc.No. 10266-M of 2008 Pa

From the facts and circumstances noticed above, it is quite

clear that a compromise has been effected between the parties.

Compromise is always a best mode to eschew the differences between

the parties. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the compromise is in

the larger interest of the parties.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the

complaint, Annexure P-1, and all the consequent proceedings arising

there from are quashed.




                                         (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
July 17, 2008                                  JUDGE
*RKMALIK*