Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd. Salim And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 March, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 17804 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 1, 2013
Mohd. Salim and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Anshuman Mandhar, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 157, dated 31.12.2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
2. Vide order dated 27.8.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 7.9.2012 before the learned Trial Court or any other date convenient to the said Court, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The learned Trial Court was directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its CRM-M No. 17804 of 2011 (O&M) 2 genuineness that the statements were not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The said Court was also directed to send a report along with the statements of the parties in relation to the validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between them.
3. In compliance of the above, respondent No. 2- complainant, Khushi Mohd., respondent No. 3, Aasian, daughter of Khushi Mohd., as well as the three petitioners, namely, Mohd. Salim, Sadiqan and Abdul Rasheed, did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. Respondent No. 2/complainant, Khushi Mohd., and Respondent No. 3, Aasian, had made the following statements:-
Statement of Khushi Mohd.
" Aasian is my daughter, she was married with
accused Mohd. Salim son of Mohd. Rashid, R/o.
Malerkotla. We have compromised the matter. My
daughter and Mohd. Salim have taken divorce. They
have no relation with each other now. I have
compromised with the accused without any pressure, coercion and without consuming any intoxicant substance and with the help of respectable. No other case is pending between us in any court except the present one. I do not want to proceed further with the present case. I have no objection, if FIR No. 157 of 31.12.2008, U/ss. 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, P.S. Ahmedgarh against accused is quashed."CRM-M No. 17804 of 2011 (O&M) 3
Statement of Aasian " I was married with Mohd. Salim son of Mohd.
Rashid, R/o. Malerkotla. We have compromised the matter. We have taken divorce from each other. We have no relation with each other now. I have compromised with accused without any pressure, coercion and without consuming any intoxicant substance and with the help of respectable. No other case is pending between us in any court except the present one. I do not want to proceed further with the present case. I have no objection, if FIR No. 157 of 31.12.2008, U/ss. 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, P.S. Ahmedgarh againjst accused is quashed."
4. Similar statements were suffered by the three petitioners-accused stating that they had effected the compromise without any pressure or coercion.
5. From the report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, it transpires that the private parties have entered into the compromise genuinely and their statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. It has further been reported that no proclamation proceedings are pending against anybody in the present case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. He further submits that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have sorted out their disputes with the petitioners and effected a compromise. He further submits that petitioner No. 1 (husband) and respondent No. 3 (wife) after taking divorce with each other, have again CRM-M No. 17804 of 2011 (O&M) 4 solemnized their respective marriages. He further submits that all the terms and conditions of the compromise have been materialized. He further submits that in view of the compromise, the pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, would be sheer abuse of the process of law as the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners-accused are bleak. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888.
7. Learned counsel for the State has perused the statements suffered by the private parties and the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed on the basis of the compromise.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also admits the factum of the compromise. He further submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. He further submits that all the terms and conditions of the compromise have already been materialized. He has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
9. Heard.
10. The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Both the parties have amicably sorted out their differences and effected a compromise. The statements of CRM-M No. 17804 of 2011 (O&M) 5 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the three petitioners-accused have already been recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also admitted the factum of the compromise. The report received from learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, reveals that the private parties have entered into the compromise genuinely and the statements suffered by them were not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The statement of respondent No. 3 (wife) also corroborates the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence are bleak.
12. As a sequel to the above discussion and the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) as well as the judgment rendered by a 5-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 157, dated 31.12.2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
March 1, 2013 JUDGE
Pkapoor