Crl.
Misc.
not M-26059 o”
1. .IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
not M-26059 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 26th, 2013 Mohd.
Shariq ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present Ms.Promila Nain, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Ms.Shivali, A AG, Punjab, for the State.
Mr.H.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia , Advocate, for respondent No.2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl.M.No.18472 of 2013 Application is allowed as prayed for.
Short reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2 filed alongwith the application is taken on record.
Main Petition Mohd.
Shariq, the petitioner has brought this petition under the Crl.
Misc.
not M-26059 o”
2. .provisions of section 482 Cr.
P.C., for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.304 of 2006 (Annexure P1) filed by Charanjit Singh, respondent No.2 titled as Charanjit Singh versus Md.Shariq for an offence punishable under sections 102, 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sector 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise dated 24.4.2010 (Annexure P3).Besides learned State counsel, Charanjit Singh, respondent No.2 has appeared through his counsel Mr.H.S.Randhawa, Advocate and has placed on record short reply by way of his affidavit asserting therein that the matter has been compromised between the parties.
It is common knowledge that decisions rendered by the courts in adversarial system would leave one or the other of the parties unsatisfied.
Sometimes, none of the two is satisfied.
The compromise arrived at between the parties washes away all the grievances of the warring factions and pave way for normal relations in future between them.
Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir versus State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a not compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences.
A Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with Crl.
Misc.
not M-26059 o”
3. .regard to the other non-compoundable offences:- “29.
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 under Section 482.
Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in not compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”
The FIRs/complaints in non-compoundable offences could, therefore, be quashed on the basis of compromise.
It is so because after compromise, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak.
However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit.
The compromise in hand not only satisfies the above said requirements, but also appears to be securing the ends of justice.
I, therefore, find that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without their being any pressure on anyone.
Hence, the petition is allowed and Criminal Complaint No.304 of 2006 (Annexure P1) filed by Charanjit Singh, respondent No.2 titled as Charanjit Singh versus Md.Shariq for an offence punishable under sections 102, 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sector 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 420 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE March 26th, 2013 som