Anjum @ Gurleen Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Jaswant Singh, J.—Present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 251 dated 27.05.2010 under Sections 452, 341, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered with police station Division No. 5 Civil Lines Ludhiana City and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise Deed/Agreement dated 7.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

In the FIR, complainant Sudhir Kumar had leveled allegations against the petitioners that they had intercepted the way of his sister-in-law who was returning to home along with her kids. On asking to give safe passage by her petitioners slapped the children and also used abusive language. They also entered the house of the complainant and also used filthy and abusive language.

This Court while issuing notice of motion had directed the parties to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate Ludhiana to get their statements recorded.

Report accompanied by letter dated 6.9.2010 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana as well as statements of complainant as well as accused persons has been received wherein it is stated that the parties appeared before that court and suffered statements recorded separately before that court. Complainant in his statement has stated that he has compromised the matter with the accused person and has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against her.

Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Gurvinder Singh submits that it is a no injury case as such no MLR was got preapred.

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court u/s 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Similar views were expressed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, , the relevant extract of which is as under:

We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 251 dated 27.05.2010 under Sections 452, 341, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered with police station Division No. 5 Civil Lines Ludhiana City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.