Rohit Kumar & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- July10, 2018 Rohit Kumar and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present:- Mr. Nitin Rampal, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. *** Petitioners - Rohit Kumar and others have brought the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 3.6.2016, for offences under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar against them, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between them and complainant Sobti- arrayed as respondent No.2. Though in the written statement submitted by the complainant Sobti to the police she had named five persons Rohit Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Vijay Laxmi, Parav and Parul, however, after enquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, recommendation was made for registration of F.I.R. against petitioners Rohit Kumar and Vijay Laxmi only. When the petition came up for hearing on 13.10.2017, notice of

motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of Punjab through State counsel, whereas respondent No.2 through Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, had put in appearance. Then in light of the contention that parties have since effected compromise, they were directed to put in appearance before the trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise and the trial Court was directed to send a report to this Court. Report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, in terms of which complainant Sobti and accused Rohit Kumar and Vijay Laxmi had appeared there and their statements were recorded, in terms of which they have admitted to have entered into a voluntary compromise, with free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

Further complainant has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the parties. It has been reported that no accused has been declared proclaimed offender in the FIR in question. Alongwith the report statement of the complainant and all the accused have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel, besides going through the record.

The dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, which appears to have been arrived at between them voluntarily without any threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in para 28, it has been held as under :- "The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine

qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice"." It has been observed that High Court has power to quash prosecution in order to achieve ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law. Though such powers are unlimited but those are to be exercised sparingly and with utmost care and caution. Though there is no statutory bar which can effect the inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a fit case to exercise such powers.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed. (H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE July 10, 2018 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No