Guneet Kaur And ORS. v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 28, 2016 Guneet Kaur and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh 1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present :

Mr. SS Narula, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, AAG, Punjab Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners are the unforntuate widow and her family members comprising her mother, brother, sister and other close relatives by virtue of being Massar and Massi who were arrayed as accused in a case got registered by way of FIR No. 121 dated 11.4.2010 under section 306 IPC,

-2Police Station Mohali.

The brief facts that needs to be essentially recapitulated to effectively adjudicate this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of the FIR on the basis of compromise are that petitioner no. 1-Guneet Kaur was married with Urmeet Singh (now deceased) on 23.11.2005 who happens to be the son of complainant Devinder Kaur widow of late Tejinder Singh. It is during the course of events, the deceased lost his business and became addicted to vices including alcohlism thus forcing the wife to take up a job and thereafter the matrimonial dispute emancipated between the couple. It is thereafter the husband was admitted in Drug Rehabilitation Centre at New Delhi which is reflected from the certificate Annexure P/1.

It is during one of the scuffle that the wife was physically assaulted by the deceased and she remained admitted in hospital from 30.3.2010 to 31.3.2010 due to injuries which is reflected by way of MLR Annexure P/2. It is claimed by the petitioner-wife that on her representation the couple was summoned by the Women Cell, Jalandhar on 8.4.2010 where the husband refused to settle the dispute and ultimately committed suicide regarding which FIR Annexure P/3 in question was got registered by the mother of the deceased. It is during the couse of time the parties realising the situation which was mere on account of irresponsible conduct of the deceased.

-3way of Annexure P/5 with the wife of the deceased, Annexure P/6. In the light of the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners and even during the investigations the police has come to the conclusion by virtue of Annexures P/7 and P/8 that the deceased had developed suicidal tendencies and thus, the petitioners sought to seek quashment of the same. Counsel for complainant-respondent no. 2 has squarely accepted this fact of compromise and even the learned trial court in its report dated 6.11.2015 after recording the statement of complainant Devinder Kaur and the accused had come to conclusion that the compromise was an outcome of voluntariness due to own free will and accord of the parties. No doubt offence under section 306 IPC is non-compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C. in view of its heinousness.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 has considered at length the eventualities under which such compromises are to be entertained and allowed and have observed that offences primarily having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour such as offence arising from commercial financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc.

-4by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. Though such instances are only illustrative and not exhaustive depending upon case to case and further as was observed by their Lordships in the cited ratio that none of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. limits or restricts the inherent powers of the High Court. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, to the mind of the Court the fact it is the poor wife who has not only been rendered widow but had been knocking at the doors of the authorities against the cruelty meted out to her by the deceased and inspite of the fact that the couple has been bestowed with a son who has been, as is brought to the notice of this Court, is still minor.

Deceased did not mend his ways are matters which have an over bearing effect on the mind of the Court. The mother in her stand before the learned trial court has shown her inclination not only of compromise but also to the effect that she does not intend to pursue criminal case arising out of this incident and in her affidavit Annexure P/5 had attributed the death of her son being course of suicide. It is duly acceded at the bar by the State counsel that she is sole witness of the prosecution and who having compromised the matter would not support the prosecution story. There is every likelihood that pursuing criminal prosecution would be futile exercise merely wasting precious time of the court.

-5prejudice and therefore, to the mind of this Court, extreme injustice would result if this Court does not comes to her aid in such an eventuality. Not only this, the role of the Courts in such a situation would be of paramount importance. It would have its own effect of smoothening the lives of the parties to this case including the growing up minor child of the deceased. Thus, in the totality of what has been detailed and discussed above, in this situation, this Court deems it imperative to exercise its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus quash the FIR Annexure P/3 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the present petitioners. However, it is made clear that this would not be a precedent for such crimes in future. The petition stands disposed of in those terms. ( Fateh Deep Singh ) January 28, 2016 Judge 'tiwana'