Shamsher Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 05.07.2024 Shamsher Singh and others .... Petitioners

Versus

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

None for respondent No. 2.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of settlement/compromise dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-2).

Pursuant to the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sri Anandpur Sahib to get their statements recorded. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sri Anandpur Sahib, has submitted her report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 30.06.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rupnagar.

-2A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 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 petitioner, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is the husband; whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the complainant/ respondent No. 2 herein. Marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with complainant/respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 11.11.2018 and one son was born out of the said wedlock on 28.11.2019. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately since 14.05.2019.

Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into settlement/compromise dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. The parties have also agreed to file a joint under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners are the only accused in the present case and they 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.

-3After perusing the report submitted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sri Anandpur Sahib, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. 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 Punjab 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

-4the 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. 68 dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of settlement/compromise dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

05.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No