Harpreet Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 06.09.2024 Harpreet Singh and others .... Petitioners

Versus

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

Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 100 dated 17.06.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 376, 511, 354, 323, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Machhiwara, Police District Khanna and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), arrived at between the parties. Pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties have appeared before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Courts), Ludhiana, to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional

-2District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Courts), Ludhiana, has submitted his report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 21.08.2024 duly forwarded by the learned I/C District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared before the learned trial Court 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; petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law; petitioners No. 3 and 4 are uncle and aunt-in-law (Taya Sasur and Tayi Saas); whereas petitioners No. 5 and 6 are the brother and sister-in-law (Jeth and Jethani) of respondent No. 2 - complainant herein. Marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with complainant/ respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.09.2022. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately. Now better sense has prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully, parties have entered into compromise dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further with the FIR in question. It is also submitted that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by way of mutual consent has

-3also been filed before the Family Court, concerned, wherein first motion statements of the parties have already been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the disputes between the parties stand settled for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to be paid by petitioner No. 1-husband to respondent No. 2-complainant; out of which petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-; and the remaining amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has also been transferred by petitioner No. 1, in the joint account bearing No. 50100694572328 of intermediaries, namely, Dvainder Singh and Karamjit Singh Grewal, who shall transmit the said remaining amount in the account of respondent No. 2-complainant at the time of recording of second motion statements of the parties.

Further, it is submitted that 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.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Courts), Ludhiana, 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.

-4As 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. 100 dated 17.06.2023 (Annexure P-1)

-5registered under Sections 376, 511, 354, 323, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Machhiwara, Police District Khanna and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

06.09.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No