Sushil Kumar Chopra Alias Sushil Chopra And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision : 21.4.2023 Sushil Kumar Chopra @ Sushil Chopra and others ..... Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Akbarjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Jashandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. Gagandeep Kumar, Advocate, for respondent no.2 --- TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.225 dated 5.11.2017 under Sections 323, 342, 377 and 511 IPC (Sections 354, 406 and 498-A IPC were added vide GD No. 35 dated 22.11.2017) registered at Police Station Bhogpur, Jalandhar Rural (Annexure P1), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the compromise deed dated 1.1.2022 (Annexure P-3) entered into between the parties to settle their disputes in question. 2.

As the parties entered into a compromise to resolve their disputes which led to registration of the criminal case, they were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded in that regard, vide order dated 19.7.2022. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 3.9.2022 has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, at Flag 'A', stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. There are two matrimonial cases pending between the parties; one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the second

-2under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant admit the factum of compromise, and submit that they have no objection to quashing of the FIR on that basis. 4.

It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in cases Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, that criminal cases having overwhelmingly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their disputes among themselves in a bona fide manner by entering into a compromise. The power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. On similar lines is another judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiji v. Radhika, 2012 (1) SCC (Criminal) 101, wherein criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 354 and 394 IPC were quashed since the parties had entered into a compromise and there were no chances of conviction.

5.

Further, reference can also be made to Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1052, holding that on the parties settling their disputes by way of a compromise, the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences also, and quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

6.

A perusal of the allegations in the FIR as well as the aforesaid report

-3establishes that the present case, arising out of matrimonial relationship, falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as per law laid down in the aforementioned judgments. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The offences alleged are not heinous in nature and cannot be termed as crime against the society; nor do they show mental depravity of the petitioners. Since disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved by way of the compromise, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility as chances of ultimate conviction are not there, and it will hamper their peaceful coexistence even after resolution of disputes. 7.

Consequently, this petition is allowed. FIR No.225 dated 5.11.2017 under Sections 323, 342, 377 and 511 IPC (Sections 354, 406 and 498-A IPC were added vide GD No. 35 dated 22.11.2017) registered at Police Station Bhogpur, Jalandhar Rural, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 21.4.2023 Aw Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No