Tarsem Lal v. State Of Punjab And ANR

CRM-M No. 6699 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 6699 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.4..2018 ...

Tarsem Lal ................Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. Naveen Mandhar, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Brar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ...

H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral) Petitioner - Tarsem Lal has brought the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 62 dated 10.7.2015, for offences under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Police Patiala, District Patiala, against him, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between him and complainant Poonam Mehta - arrayed as respondent No.2. When the petition came up for hearing on 1.3.2017, notice of motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of Punjab through State counsel, whereas respondent No.2 through Mr. Ritesh Datta, Advocate, had put in appearance. Then in light of the

CRM-M No. 6699 of 2017 -2contention 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, Patiala, in terms of which complainant Poonam Mehta and accused, namely, Tarsem Lal 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. Alongwith the report copies of statements of the complainant and the accused, have been annexed.

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

It is a matrimonial dispute which has been amicably settled between the spouses and as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, they have started living together.

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

CRM-M No. 6699 of 2017 -3held 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 ) 4.4.2018 Judge chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No