Gaurav Kumar Juneja Alias Gaurav Juneja And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another
!"
#$%$!&'
() )
* + ,- *
- )) $ $!& .% *%) -
)) %/!&0 & % '
1, ) -
- ,
- ,
)
.
3
!
" #$% !&'() * +, --%( !% -% %-%% #&$. #-/ !$/-"*01 2*01 " %34 ) 55 -'
!- %-%% !'( 36 .%4 5 * + 5"5 " 5
%
, 5 -7 -( %-%#
-( !% %-%# 5 "
(
8 "9 "" 5 2 " 2*012*01 " 51
"
#
8 , % 5 % " "
8
34 , !. %. 5 " : , !. " ) 5349 34 5 595 5 8 !(.;< !&77 5 % 5 5-# -!
%-%# =Stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 04.04.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Fazilka. After marriage, we cohabited as husband and wife. From the said wedlock, no child was bom. Due to serious temperamental differences of opinion and also because of strained relations between the parties, with the passage of time our marriage has irretrievably broken down. Now we both are living separately since 02.08.2021. During that period we could not reconcile with each other.
As per settlement between the parties, we have exchanged our respective articles. My permanent alimony has been settled at Rs.8,00,000/+ out of which I have received Rs.4,00,000/+ earlier and the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/+ have been received today. Thereafter I shall not claim any maintenance or share in property from petitioner No.2 in future. We shall withdraw the cases, if any, filed against each other and
will not file any case against each other pertaining to present marriage. I will not raise any objection regarding quashing of FIR bearing No.23 dated 12.02.2022, under Sections 498+A, 406 ГРС, Police Station City Fazilka registered against petitioner No.2 and his family at my instance. We have mutually agreed to dissolve our marriage and the consent has not been obtained under any threat, coercion, inducement or undue influence. Though we were asked to reconcile the matter, but within the cooling off period we could not crease out our differences. Decree of divorce with mutual consent may kindly be passed."
"
> *5" *01
5 -/ -!
%-%# % 5"
5 + $ 5 8
" *5" =It has further been decided that the petitioner No.1 will not proceed further with the case bearing FIR No.23 dated 12.02.2022, Police Station City Fazilka and she will be bound to suffer statement before the appropriate forum for quashing of the FIR aforementioned on the basis of compromise aforementioned. Both the parties have resolved their issues amicably and all the efforts of mediation and conciliation to reunite them have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction. The parties have genuinely settled their differences and have reached to the conclusion of annulling their marriage through decree of divorce. It has further been averred that the consent to file the present petition is free and has not been obtained under threat, coercion or undue influence. There is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. Hence, the present petition."
/
8 %." ) 5 9 ") 5 * +3) 554 5595 "
* +) 5 5 )
'
8
"
5 " *5" 5
8 5 5 9 -% -( %-%( ) * +) 5 !/ -( %-%(
" %#
( " 65
8 5
5:
" " < 5
$
8 %. 5 " "" 5
) )
&
!-
5
45 '
' %& -# %-%# .
"8. Though Section 498+A was brought into the IPC, by way of an amending act of 1983, with the salutary objective of curbing the evil of dowry, but judicial experience evinces that this provision along with Section 406 of IPC is being heavily misapplied by the complainant+wife to settle score(s) with her husband and his family members. This Court in the case of Varun Sharma (supra) has held that, it has been noticeable in several cases, that the wife tends to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 498A of IPC against her husband as also his relatives, as a means of a 'solution seeking redressal mechanism' rather than actually seeking to criminally prosecute them. On numerous occasions an individual wail
does not ensue due to a vengeful proclivity or anger, but owing to distressing disappointment endured by a discontented spouse (wife, in the present case), in securing a copacetic solution of the matrimonial discord. The predicament of such a discontented partner (wife) is exacerbated when she is mentally/emotionally enervated due to, inter alia, an acceptable solution not seemingly forthcoming, as a result resorting to actuating a torsion of criminal prosecution. Yet, the abovesaid cannot be stated to be true in all the cases. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that the above+said situation is true for a large volume of cases being preferred in the Court(s).
Ergo, the Courts ought to be prudent and cautious in dealing with such cases and must take into consideration all the pragmatic realities while evaluating the matrimonial discord related criminal cases. The Courts cannot be oblivious to countenancing the pragmatic and realistic necessities of time. The High Court, while exercising inherent and intrinsic powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973; ought to countenance the tangible and concrete realities and cannot engirth itself in an ivory tower.
8.1 It has been observed, inveterately, that a wife after having entered into a willful and valid compromise/settlement with the accused+ husband and/or his family members, tends to reap all the benefits thereof and, thereafter, does not step forward for undertaking the necessary steps towards having the FIR in question quashed. The Hon ble Supreme Court in cases of Ruchi Agarwal (supra) and Mohd. Shamim (supra) have extensively dealt with such like situations) & has enunciated that once the wife has reaped the benefit, she sought without contest on the basis of terms of such a compromise, it can be readily and unequivocally deciphered that conduct of such a wife in adopting dilatory tactics is only aimed at causing harassment to the husband/his family members.
It is a settled cannon of our jurisprudence that credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are, but of course, relevant considerations to ensure the continuation of public confidence in the credibility as also majesty of our jurisprudential set+up. Needless to say that faith of people in the efficacy of law is; saviour and succour for the sustenance of the rule of law. 8.2. The essential question that next arises is as to whether the High Court, by way of exercising of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash such an FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom) in such a situation as was before Hon 'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ruchi Agarwal (supra) and Mohd. Shamim (supra). The nature, scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
, 1973 have been copiously delineated in the case of Talima (supra). The essential postulate that emerges is that the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. The only restriction on exercise of such powers is self restraint. Further, the nature, mode and extent of exercise of such intrinsic powers by the High Court depend upon the judicial discretion required to be wielded by a High Court in the facts and circumstance of a given case. 8.
3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahmood Ali case (supra) has held that in case of vexatious or malicious proceedings, the High Court is saddled with a bounden duty to look into the attending circumstances as also can even go on to read between the lines, while considering a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also all proceedings arising therefrom). It is hence ineluctable that ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law though justice ought to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. Accordingly, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(
between the lines" as also examine the "attending circumstances in a case if its facts/circumstances so warrant
9. As a sequel to above discussion, the following principles emerge:
1. (i) In an FIR, arising from matrimonial related dispute, where the complainant/wife has reaped the benefits of a compromise/settlement & nothing more is required to be done by the accused+side/husband then such FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) deserves to be quashed.
(ii) In a case of above kind; the complainant/wife may, but of+ course, raise plea(s) that such compromise/settlement was a result of fraud/coercion/duress etc. However, such plea(s) ought to be substantiated by tangible material and merely bald assertion in that regard would not suffice. Furthermore, before allowing the wife to raise such a plea(s), the Court may also consider directing the complainant/wife to return the financial benefit(s) received in pursuance of such compromise/settlement. II. In a case where the accused side/husband has undertaken some steps, in terms of as also in furtherance, of the compromise/settlement & such accused are willing to undertake all further/remaining act(s), as required in terms of such compromise/settlement; the High Court will be well within its jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
of 1973, to favorably consider such quashing petition upon the further/remaining act(s) being so undertaken by the accused side/husband. III. No comprehensive/exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid+ down in this regard as every case has its own unique factual conceptus. Needless to state that the High Court may exercise its intrinsic powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 as called for in the facts/circumstance of a particular case."
!!
" 5 595 5 , !
, % 595 5 %. 5+ $3 59 5 5"4 5 , !.
3 5 4
" *5" " , %. 5 5 595 ) 3 "" 5 4
!!
!
56 " 5 * + ,6 5
5 * + 5 " 6 #$% !&'( 6 ,?"6 5 34 " 55 < 6 5 * +3
554)
!!
% ;
5 %.6 5bona fide "
5 5 9
5
5 " 595 5
5 34 Ergo %.
" 5
#$%$!& !% 3!4
5 * +, --%( !% -% %-%% #&$. #-/ !$/-"*012*01 " %34)
55 -'
!- %-%% !'( 36 .%4)
34
%.
+ '7---9.
"> 3> 4 *01 15 "
@ > *0155 8 " " , %. > *01 5 2 "55*01 5 %. " 5
02 "55*01 5 5 > *01 5 8 " 5 "> *012 "55*01 "
34 +" 5 "
5 %.@> *012 "55*01 ) 5
!(
34" .
() )
- ,
A 19
B , A B ,