Himanshu Singh @ Ricky v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 01.03.2024 Himanshu Singla @ Ricky

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kashish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate for Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2. *** SUMEET GOEL , J.

(Oral) 1.

By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 0039 dated 08.06.2023 under Sections 498-A,406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Women Bathinda, District Bathinda and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of Statement dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure P-3), which is stated to have been effected between the parties. 2.

On 20.11.2023, the following order was passed: "This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.0039 dated 08.06.2023 under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Women Bathinda (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising there-from, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the FIR is

the result of a matrimonial discord between the parties and now all disputes stand settled between them. Learned counsel would further contend that the parties have also filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent (Annexure P-2) and that the statements of first motion also stand recorded (Annexure P3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." [2012 (10) SCC 303] and the Larger Bench's judgement of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052].

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate for Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.2/complainant. Copy of the petition has already been supplied to both the counsel. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has stated that the parties have since entered into a compromise and that respondent No.2 has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed in view of the compromise.

List on 01.03.2024.

Meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 17.01.2024, or on any other date convenient to the Court, 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 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 has been freely entered into between the parties 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 aforesaid order, report dated 23.01.2024 from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-cum-CJJD. Bathinda has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- "1. The undersigned is satisfied that compromise has been effected between accused and the complainant, freely, without any kind of undue influence, coercion and pressure.

2. As per statement of IO, there is no other criminal case pending against the parties.

3. As per statement of IO, no proclamation proceedings are pending against either of the parties."

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashed. 5.

Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-3). 6.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

7.

This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by Apex Court and this Court is : ((a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc. (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed

during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.

8.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as :- (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature. (iii) The parties have compromised.

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

9.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 0039 dated 08.06.2023 under Sections 498-A,406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Women Bathinda, District Bathinda and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of Statement dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure P3), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 01.03.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No