Lakhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

2023:PHHC:162626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.12.2023 LAKHWINDER SINGH .... Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Sumit Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harjinder Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Tejasvi Sheoran, Advocate for Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.30 dated 27.05.2018 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Women, Police Commissionerate, District Amritsar, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.

On 19.09.2023 the following order was passed : "This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.30 dated 27.05.2018 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Women, Police Commissionerate, District Amritsar.

-2Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the present FIR is the result of a matrimonial discord and now the parties have settled all their disputes and entered into a compromise dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure P-2). The learned counsel would further contend that the parties have decided to part ways and accordingly a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed and the first instalment of the settlement amount already stands paid at the time of recording of first motion statements.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Ms. Tyasvi Sheoran, Advocate appearing for Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has further stated that respondent No.2 would have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

List on 18.12.2023.

Meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 20.10.2023, or on any other date convenient to the

-3Court, for recording of their statements. The CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court is directed to record the statements of the parties to its satisfaction qua the genuineness of the compromise between the parties and that the same is not the result of any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind. A report, along-with the statements of the parties, on the following points be sent to this Court before the next date of hearing:

1) Whether the compromise entered into between the parties is without any undue influence, coercion or pressure of any kind.

2) Whether any other criminal cases are pending against the parties.

3) Whether any proclamation proceedings are pending against either of the parties."

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2023, a report dated 26.10.2023 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the complainant has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report.

4.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] has held as under :

-4- "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 what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.

However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

-5Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

-6between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the parties have also filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which first motion statements stand recorded and the matter is now posted for recording of second motion statements. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and secure the ends of justice.

6.

In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. 7.

Resultantly, FIR No.30 dated 27.05.2018 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Women, Police Commissionerate, District Amritsar, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed on the basis of compromise dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure P-2).

-78.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

18.12.2023 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No