Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 July, 2008
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
---
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10127-M of 2008
Date of decision: 24.7.2008
Rajesh Kumar and others --- Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another --- Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
---
PRESENT: Mr. Mandeep Sachdev, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
Mr. Rahul Pushkarna, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
---
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of F.I.R. No. 35 dated 20.2.2003 under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, as well as the subsequent proceedings arising there from, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
The FIR aforesaid was lodged by Roop Rani, the mother of respondent No.2-Meena who was married to Rajesh Kumar petitioner on 21.4.2002. At the commencement of hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that with the intervention of the respectables from both the sides, a good sense has prevailed upon the Criminal Misc. No. 10127-M of 2008 Page numbers parties and they have patched up their differences once for all. The parties have now entered into a compromise and a copy of the compromise-deed dated 1.3.2008, has been attached to this petition as Annexure P-2. Meena, respondent No.2, the wife of petitioner-Rajesh Kumar, came present in Court and got recorded her statement to the effect that she had now entered into a compromise with the petitioners vide compromise dated 1.3.2008, Annexure P-2, without any threat, promise or inducement. She did not want to proceed with the aforesaid FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising there from. She further stated that her affidavit dated 7.7.2008, Mark 'A', to the effect that compromise has been effected between her and the petitioners bore her signatures and the FIR may be quashed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
From the facts and circumstances noticed above, a question would, thus, arise, whether the parties can enter into a compromise in a non-compoundable offence. This question is no longer res integra and has now been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it has been held that the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
In view of the above, I find that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. The compromise so arrived at is in the larger interest of the parties. It will help promoting the peace and harmony Pa Criminal Misc. No. 10127-M of 2008 Page numbers between them in the future as well. The quashing of the FIR would, therefore, be in the best interest of the parties.
Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in question as well as the subsequent proceedings arising there from are quashed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
July 24, 2008 JUDGE
*RKMALIK*
Pa