Randhir Singh Virk And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 16.07.2024 Randhir Singh Virk and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Rishu Madan, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Harpreet Singh, 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. 249 dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A/34 IPC (Sections 406 and 325 IPC added later on) at Police Station City Mukstar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), entered into between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib, has submitted her report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 15.07.2024 duly

-2forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is uncle of respondent No.3 herein. It is submitted that the FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, who is mother of respondent No.3. Marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent No.

3 was solemnized on 25.2.2012 and one child was born out of the said wedlock on 29.5.2013. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately since 01.6.2017. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It submitted that as per compromise, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by way of mutual consent has been filed, wherein first motion statement of the parties has been recorded and out of total agreed amount of Rs.25,00,000/- half of the amount i.e. Rs.12,50,000/- has also been paid to respondent No.

-3petitioners and rest of the amount will be paid to her on the date of recording of second motion statement. Further, it is submitted that all the petitioners were named in the FIR as well as in the challan. 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, Sri Muktsar Sahib, 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. 249 dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A/34 IPC (Sections 406 and 325 IPC added later on) at Police Station City Mukstar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), entered into between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners. 16.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No