Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balram Thapar & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-22606 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-22606 of 2014
Date of Decision:-5.8.2014
Balram Thapar & Ors.
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Rajat Bansal, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.P.K.S.Phulka, Advocate for respondents No.2 .
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Shankar Dass s/o Sohan Lal, respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Balram Thapar son of Ashok Kumar and others, vide FIR No.20 dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P5), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station NRI, District Moga.
2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against the petitioners-accused to face the trial ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.06 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-22606 of 2014 2 of indicated offences in the trial Court.
3. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by means of compromise deed dated 25.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) and affidavit dated 4.7.2014 (Annexure P4) of the complainant.
4. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the marriage of Aakriti, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 16.10.2010 at Ludhiana. After solemnization of their marriage, they went to USA and were settled there. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and daughter of complainant was stated to have already been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the basis of amicable settlement in USA, by way of decree dated 6.6.2013 (Annexure P2). Now with the intervention of respectables and family friends, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed (Annexure P3). The complainant has also filed his affidavit (Annexure P4) to reiterate the factum of compromise. He has no objection in case the criminal case registered against the petitioners is quashed. The settlement is stated to be in the welfare and larger interest of the parties. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-5) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.06 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-22606 of 2014 3 (Annexure P-3) between them and send its report, by virtue of order dated 11.7.2014 by this Court.
6. In compliance thereof, the trial Court, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, in its report dated 31.7.2014, concluded that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. They have redressed their grievances, in pursuance of compromise deed (Annexure P3). The factum of compromise is also reiterated by the affidavit (Annexure P4) of the complainant.
7. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by way of compromise deed (Annexure P3), affidavit (Annexure P4) of complainant and the pointed report of the trial Court.
8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of matrimonial disputes, by means of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now well- settled.
9. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (para
57) as under:-
"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 ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.06 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-22606 of 2014 4 ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10. Sequelly, the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 (2) ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.06 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-22606 of 2014 5 RCR (Criminal) 482.
11. Above being the legal position and the material on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the petitions is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?
12. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
13. As is evident from the record that, the marriage of Aakriti, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 16.10.2010 at Ludhiana. After solemnization of their marriage, they went to USA and were settled there. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and daughter of complainant was stated to have already been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the basis of amicable settlement in USA, by way of decree dated 6.6.2013 (Annexure P2). Now with the intervention of respectables and family friends, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed (Annexure P3). The complainant has also filed his affidavit (Annexure P4) to reiterate the factum of compromise. He has no objection in case the criminal case registered against the petitioners is quashed. The settlement is stated to be in the welfare and larger interest of the parties The factum and genuineness of the compromise between them is also reiterated by the trial Court in its indicated report. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.06 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-22606 of 2014 6 so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Gian Singh & Narinder Singh & Ors. (supra), "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Likewise, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.20 dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal case on the basis of compromise.
15. Needless to mention that in case, any of the parties fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise deed (Annexure P3), then, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to move an application to revive the present criminal prosecution.
Sd/-
5.8.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
ARVIND SHARMA
2014.08.06 11:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh