Allowed

Harpinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2008CRM-M/22032/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and consequent proceedings in a matrimonial dispute. The petitioners sought quashing based on a compromise and subsequent mutual divorce. Since the parties settled and divorced, the Court held continued prosecution was futile and an abuse of process, allowing the petition and quashing the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowed; impugned FIR No. 227 dated 6.7.2007 and all consequent proceedings thereto are quashed.

Harpinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. 22032-M of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 19.11.2008

¶4

¶5

Harpinder Singh & Ors.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶11

Present:Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

**Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *****

¶14

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. 52623 of 2008

¶16

This is an application for recalling/ modification of order dated 15.10.2008 vide which Crl. Misc. No. 22032 of 2008 was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶17

Notice of the application.

¶18

Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State while Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate, who is present in the Court accepts notice for respondent No.2. They have raised no objection in restoration of the main petition. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. No.22032-M of 2008 is ordered to be restored to its original number.

¶19

On the request of parties Crl. Misc. No.22032-M of 2008 is taken up for hearing today itself.

¶20

Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 227 dated 6.7.2007, under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code (though as per Section 506 IPC has been wrongly mentioned instead of 406 IPC), got registered by respondent No.2 against them at Police Station Maqsoodan, District Jalandhar on the basis of

¶21

¶22

compromise stated to have entered between them.

¶23

Petitioner No.1 is the husband, while petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively whereas petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 Sunita Devi. It has been contended that on account of strained relations between the married couple, who were married on 18.8.2003, the instant FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 and now with the intervention of respectables, the matter has been settled and the couple has taken divorce from each other by way of filing a petition by mutual consent, vide award dated 30.8.2008. Statement of respondent No.2 recorded before the District Judge, Jalandhar has also been placed on record as Annexure P-3 wherein also there are recitals of the parties have entered into the settlement. Affidavit of respondent No.2 has also been placed on record wherein also the factum of the compromise and her no objection as to the quashing of the impugned FIR has been reiterated.

¶24

By now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

¶25

In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:-

¶26

“ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.”

¶27

The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in noncompoundable offence(s) has held as under:-

¶28

¶29

“28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.

¶30

The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable 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.”

¶31

In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have purchased peace for each other and have part their ways by taking divorce. Taking into account these facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.

¶32

¶33

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto are quashed.

¶34

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶35

November 19, 2008 Jiten

Harpinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Neetu Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Hy.State Vs Akhtar Hussain etc.

Gumani Ram Vs Hy.State

Major Singh Vs State of Pb.