Ankit Khemka And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 Ankit Khemka and others .... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Ms. Molly Tarunima Tagore, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Rishu Madan, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners, who are the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein have filed instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 155 dated 31.07.2023 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi Fatehgarh Sahib and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.

Perusal of the order dated 30.05.2024 shows that there is a typographical error in the name of the petitioner. Hence, order dated 30.05.2024 is modified to the extent that 'Anil Khemka' be read as 'Ankit Khemka'.

Pursuant to the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, to get their statements recorded. Learned Sub

-2Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 04.07.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 05.07.2024.

A 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 valid, genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioners. The petitioners have never been declared as proclaimed offenders. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are the only party to the compromise.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have stated that they have '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.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, 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.

-3As 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 the 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. 155 dated 31.07.2023 registered under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi Fatehgarh Sahib and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the

-4basis of compromise dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 03.10.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No