Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preeti Bhandari And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 1 February, 2018
Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan
CRM-M-44336 of 2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-44336 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 01, 2018
Preeti Bhandari @ Raminder Kaur and another............................Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another........................................................Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr.Abhinay Goel,Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Abhaypal Singh Gill, Assistant Advocate General,Punjab
Mr.S.K. Liberhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2
*****
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 33 dated 18.2.2017 under Sections 406, 420,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) registered at Police Station City South, District Moga, Punjab (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise on 17.11.2017 (Annexure P2) .
Vide order dated 7.12.2017, a direction was given to the trial Court to record the statements of the parties and submit a report regarding the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties and also to intimate whether any accused is proclaimed offender.
In pursuance thereof, the trial Court has submitted a report 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 03:09:55 ::: CRM-M-44336 of 2017 (O&M) 2 dated 2.1.2018 (forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge Moga on 4.1.2018), after recording the statements of the parties. The trial Court has submitted that the complainant- Gurtej Singh Kainth and accused- Preeti Bhandari and Rakesh Kumar have appeared along with their respective counsel, who had identified them and got their statements recorded acknowledging that the compromise had been effected voluntarily, without any coercion or any undue influence. This fact is not disputed by learned State Counsel,who has submitted, on instructions from Head Constable- Sukhpal Singh that none of them is declared a proclaimed offender.
Perusal of allegations in the FIR reveals that the present case squarely falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. Keeping in view authoritative enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in "Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another", 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543 and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and it is expedient in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings are put to an end.
As per the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 03:09:56 ::: CRM-M-44336 of 2017 (O&M) 3 is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and others (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 350 has held as under:-
"Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties."
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 33 dated 18.2.2017 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City South, District Moga, Punjab (Annexure P1) along with all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed by 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 03:09:56 ::: CRM-M-44336 of 2017 (O&M) 4 way of compromise subject to the petitioners' paying costs in the sum of ` 5,000/- in the Office of District Legal Services Authority, Moga within 8 weeks from today, failing which this order shall stand recalled automatically without reference to the Court.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE February 01,2018 arya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 03:09:56 :::