Gurnam Singh @ Ram Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 15.07.2024 Gurnam Singh @ Ram Singh and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Rishu Madan, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 09.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station NRI, Patiala, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.12.20233 (Annexure P-2), entered into between the parties.

Pursuant to the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 22.04.2024 duly forwarded by the learned

-2District and Sessions Judge, Patiala.

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence. Further perusal of the report also reveals that in terms of order 22.03.2024, statements of petitioner No. 5-husband and respondents No. 2 and 3 who are permanent residents of Australia have been recorded through their respective Special Power of Attorney Holders (SPA). Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law; petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the adopted parents-in-law; whereas petitioner No. 5 is the husband of respondent No.

3 herein. Complainant in the present case is the father of the victim. Marriage of the petitioner No. 5 with respondent No. 3 was solemnized on 05.05.2016. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately since 2018. The parties have also filed a petition for divorce before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The present FIR was lodged by complainant/ respondent No. 2/father of respondent No. 2 on account of some misapprehension on his part. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 21.12.

-3both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. Further, it is submitted that initially, 07 persons were named in the FIR, however, challan has been filed only against the present petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have never been declared as proclaimed offenders.

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 has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3. 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

-4Punjab 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 the 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. 4 dated 09.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station NRI, Patiala, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.12.20233 (Annexure P-2), entered into between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

15.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No