Harwinder Singh Alias Ravi And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 07.05.2024 Harwinder Singh @ Ravi and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chahal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners who are husband (petitioner No. 1), motherin-law (petitioner No. 2) and brother-in-law/Devar (petitioner No. 3) of respondent No. 2-complainant have filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 131 dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) notarized on 17.02.2024, effected between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, has submitted her report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 20.03.2024 duly forwarded

-2by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala. A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise according to which the parties have arrived at compromise out of their free volition and without any inducement, threat, coercion or undue influence from any quarter. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband; whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 are mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Devar) respectively of respondent No. 2 complainant. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 with respondent No. 2complainant was solemnized in the year 2019 and one was born out of the said wedlock.

Due to temperamental difference, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately. Now, better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) notarized on 17.02.2024, according to which both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question and decided to pursue their life together peacefully. Further, it is submitted that petitioners are the only accused in the present FIR and they have never been declared as proclaimed offender(s).

Learned State counsel has stated that he has 'no objection' in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and

-3has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-inbelow:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding

-4the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."

In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 131 dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) notarized on 17.02.2024, effected between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

07.05.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No