Neena Sharma v. State Of Punjab & ANR
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.04.2015 Neena Sharma @ Anjali Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1) Whether Reporters of the 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. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, for Dr. Shelly Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Satish Singla, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of case FIR No.161 dated 18.09.2012 registered under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Matour, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, later on charges framed under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC and Section 24 of the (E)migration Act and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.02.2015 (Annexure P-2/Colly) between the parties.
On 09.03.2015 notice of motion was issued and parties were given liberty to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise/settlement and trial
-2Court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send the report. In pursuance of order dated 09.03.2015, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar (Mohali), has submitted his report, which indicates that parties appeared before learned Magistrate and got recorded their respective statements with regard to validity of compromise. As per the report, compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner. Now no dispute survives between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar FIR No.84 dated 20.06.2012 registered under Sections 406/420 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Indian Emigration Act at Police Station Matour, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) against the petitioner has already been quashed on the basis of compromise in Crl. Misc. No. M42264 of 2014 titled 'Neena Sharma @ Anjali Sharma v. State of Punjab and others' on 03.03.2015.
Consequently, in view of the compromise and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007
(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases where this Court should not exercise its inherent
-3jurisdictional power to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in Gian Singh's case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end. The present petition is allowed. FIR No.161 dated 18.09.2012 registered under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Matour, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, later on charges framed under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC and Section 24 of the (E)migration Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it, on the basis of compromise, is quashed.
It is, however, made clear that if the proceedings already stand concluded and conviction recorded in the present case, this order shall be treated non est and, thus, will have no bearing on the conviction and sentence order.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge April 28, 2015 R.S.