Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 December, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-34804 of 2013 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:6.12.2013
Gurjinder Singh and another
...Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Ms. Seema Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh Grewal, Advocate for complainant-
respondent No.2.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed by petitioners Gurjinder Singh and Gurdeep Kaur under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.121 dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-P.2) registered on the complaint of Pashmeen Kaur-complainant (respondent No.2) for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police Station City-2 Abohar and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 3.9.2013 (Annexure-P.1) arrived at between the parties in the Mediation Centre of this Court during the pendency of Criminal Misc. Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.18 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-34804 of 2013 (O&M) [2] No.M-2375 of 2013.
The marriage between petitioner No.1 Gurjinder Singh and respondent No.2 Pashmeen Kaur was solemnized on 15.4.2011 and after some time matrimonial dispute arose between husband and wife. Now in the Mediation Centre of this Court compromise dated 3.9.2013 has been effected between the parties during the pendency of Criminal Misc. No.M- 2375 of 2013 and the husband and wife have mutually decided to seek dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent by filing petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.
On 11.10.2013, learned Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send a report with regard to the genuineness/validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure-P.1) after recording the statements of all the concerned parties.
In compliance of the above, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar has sent his report vide letter dated 25.10.2013, wherein statements of complainant Pashmeen Kaur and accused-petitioner Gurjinder Singh have been recorded. It has been submitted in the report that complainant Pashmeen Kaur has compromised the matter with accused-petitioners, namely, Gurjinder Singh and Gurdeep Kaur with the intervention of respectables and compromise dated 3.9.2013 has been entered into between them. The complainant-respondent No.2 has stated that she does not want to proceed with the present case and she has no objection if the accused-petitioners are acquitted/discharged. She has entered into compromise with her own free will and without any Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.18 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-34804 of 2013 (O&M) [3] pressure. The accused-petitioners admitted the factum of compromise effected between them. In the compromise, the complainant has stated that her claim with regard to dowry and other valuable as well as permanent alimony already stands satisfied. It has also been agreed by both the parties that they will not harass, trouble and file any complaint or Court case of any sort against each other and their family members.
Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for complainant- respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Pashmeen Kaur (respondent No.2) as matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. Now, with the intervention of respectable persons, the parties have agreed to settle their matrimonial dispute and differences amicably between themselves. The parties have decided to seek dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent by filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Since the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.18 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-34804 of 2013 (O&M) [4] quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 even though they are not compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after having interpreted the relevant provisions, has held in para 57 of the judgment as follows:
"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 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 Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.18 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-34804 of 2013 (O&M) [5] 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 Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.18 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-34804 of 2013 (O&M) [6] 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."
Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No.121 dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-P.2) registered for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police Station City-2 Abohar and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 3.9.2013 (Annexure-P.1).
December 6, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.18 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh