Puneet Ummat Etc v. State Of Punjab Etc

KUMAR MANOJ 2015.12.15 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision:-09.12.2015 Puneet Ummat and Ors.

......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and Anr.

......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Mikhil Kaid, AAG, Punjab along with ASI Balwinder Singh.

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the complainant. *** JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR no.95 dated 22.8.2014 under Sections 406/498-A IPC,PS Women Cell, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 16.10.2015 parties were directed to get their statements recorded regarding genuineness of the compromise. Now learned JMIC, Ludhiana vide report dated 24.11.2015 (taken on record as Mark-A) has reported that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties genuinely

#2# without any pressure or coercion. Learned State counsel on the basis of instructions received from ASI Balwinder Singh, states that the case is still under investigation.

As per allegations in the FIR, marriage of the complainant-Rakhi Arora was solemnized with petitioner No.1 and a huge amount is stated to have been spent over it. Petitioners, who are the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant, as per the contents of the FIR, used to harass the complainant on the pretext of dowry.

At the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a Banker cheque dated 04.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- to the complainant-wife in terms of the compromise. The same has been accepted by the complainant-Rakhi Arora, present in person. A photo copy of the same has been retained for the purpose of record. It is conceded that a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as of now has been paid and received by the complainant. Remaining sum of Rs.22,50,000/- are to be paid at the stage of recording of statement at the second motion in the pending divorce petition by mutual consent. It is also agreed that the parties shall be bound by their statements.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675, B.S.Joshi and others v State of Haryana and another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect

#3# the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extract reads as under:- "The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice."

Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T.2008(9) SC 192 Nikhil Merchant v Central Bureau of Investigation and Another while relying upon its decision in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.

Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-

#4# "We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."

Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR no.95 dated 22.8.2014 under Sections 406/498-A IPC,PS Women Cell, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on, are quashed.

December 09, 2015 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

#5#