High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/52483/2023allowed

Nishu Verma v. State Of Punjab And Another

2024-04-22Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-52483-2023 Date of Decision:22.04.2024 Nishu Verma .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Chahal, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

NIDHI GUPTA , J. (ORAL) The petitioner who is husband of respondent No. 2complainant has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 06.01.2015 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and judgment and conviction order dated 18.10.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) effected between the parties.

Vide order dated 30.11.2023, parties were directed to record their statements before the learned Illaqa Magistrate which reads as follows:-

!"# $ %&$%$%'

() !

* + )

, -

$%$% -0

2 )

- %$%$% 3)

4 ( 5/ - , $ 6

(

# $/ /

4 ( 5$6

-0

9Ram Gopal and Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh' [2021 (SCC) Online (SC) 834]

/ -0 +/

9Sube Singh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.' [2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102]

- $ #

$ ;

2$) .

))=

# $( $2$)

) / 2$>< ) /

(

# $$ 0

$ 6

# $ /

0 -0 ,

, /

# $

$ 6

$% $%$ 2 , -

2 ?! 2 ?

%$%$%

$12?! 2 ?

, -

- 4 @ 5* %$%$% 3)

4 ( 5-

- , ,

$ 5* 0

5* 0

$ 5* 0 $"

Pursuant to the above said order, the parties appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, has submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 15.02.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 16.02.2024.

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioner 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. He further submits that as per report, the FIR in question was registered against four accused namely Nishu Kumar, Kewal Kumar, Krishna Devi and Rahul Verma and all the accused except the petitioner were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2018.

The petitioner has not been declared as proclaimed offender and no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. He also draws attention of this Court to averments made in para No. 8 of the petition wherein he stated that parties have also been granted divorce by mutual consent in a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar vide decree of divorce subsequent to recording of second motion statement on 26.02.2024.

Learned State counsel has stated that he has 'no objection' in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner 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 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. 4 dated 06.01.2015 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and judgment and conviction order dated 18.10.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) effected between the parties, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner. 22.04.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No