AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
GD No
Dated
Police Station
Sections
39
25.05.2019
Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka
323, 34 IPC and 325 IPC (Added later on vide rapat No.15 dated 30.05.2019
IN
FIR No.
Dated
Police Station
Sections
27.05.2019
27.05.2019
Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka
341, 323, 379-B, 511 IPC
The petitioners, arraigned as accused in the above captioned DDR, have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the DDR and all consequential proceedings based on the compromise with the aggrieved person.
During the pendency of the petition, the accused and the aggrieved person have compromised the matter, and its copy is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2.
After that, the petitioners came up before this Court to quash the DDR, and in the quashing petition, impleading the aggrieved person as respondent.
On 18.7.22, the aggrieved person Om Prakash (R-2) appeared before the JMIC, Jalalabad and stated that there would be no objection if the court quashes this DDR and consequent proceedings. As per the concerned court's report dated 21.7.22, the parties consented to the quashing of DDR and consequent proceedings without any threat.
ANALYSIS & REASONING:
Despite the opposition of the State’s counsel to this compromise, the following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition. In the present case, offences under section 325, 323 and 341 are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Given the legislative mandate, the prosecution can be closed by quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at P 642, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.
In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance.
In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324 , Hon’ble Supreme Court holds “[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stand vitiated.”
Considering the entire facts, compromise, and in the light of the above-mentioned judicial precedents, I believe that continuing these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC and quashes the DDR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s). The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above.