Allowed

Narinder Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Aug 2009CRM-M/17677/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR stemming from a matrimonial dispute. The Court, finding an amicable settlement and the resumption of cohabitation between the parties, exercised inherent powers to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., noting the policy to prevent harassment and restore social harmony.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 333 dated 31.10.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Narinder Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-17677 of 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-17677 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 18, 2009

¶4

Narinder Kumar s/o Manak Chand Rakshit and another

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 333 dated 31.10.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Phagwara City, District Kapurthala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, which came to be effected during a petition for grant of anticipatory bail moved by Narinder Kumarpetitioner No. 1 being Crl. Misc. No. M-1597 of 2009. It is during this

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. M-17677 of 2009 2

¶16

proceeding before this Court that a compromise was entered into between the parties and the same is reflected in the order dated 06.05.2009 passed by this Court, which order has been reproduced in para-7 of the petition. On the basis of the said compromise, counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR, which was primarily a matrimonial dispute between the parties having been amicably resolved and in the light of that both petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2-Parveen Kumari are residing together as husband and wife since May, 2009 after the passing of the order by this Court on 06.05.2009, may be quashed.

¶17

Upon notice of motion having been issued in this case, respondent No. 2 has come present in person along with petitioner No. 1 and has submitted an affidavit in this Court admitting the factum of settlement of the dispute between them amicably and also admitting that they are living together since May, 2009 as husband and wife. It has further been stated that all disputes relating to the FIR in question have been resolved and she does not want to pursue the matter any further. She has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question, which was recorded at her behest, is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶18

Counsel for the State also does not have any objection to the quashing of the FIR in the light of the fact that it was primarily a matrimonial dispute and the same having been resolved between the parties.

¶19

In view of the amicable settlement, which has been entered into between the parties, according to which, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are residing together as husband and wife since May, 2009 and in

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-17677 of 2009 3

¶21

the light of the affidavit and statement, which has been made by respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and has been identified by Mr. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners, no useful purpose would be served by further proceeding with the FIR in question or keeping it alive when the dispute, on the basis of which the FIR came into existence, no more exists. The purpose and intent of legislation is to bring about peace and harmony between the members of the society and to guide and control their acts. It was never intended to harass the citizens of the country. The dispute having been amicably settled between the parties, the matter being primarily a matrimonial in nature and keeping in view the fact that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are residing as husband and wife, it would be in the interest of justice that the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings be quashed.

¶22

Reliance can be made upon the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in the case Kulvinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (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 non-compoundable offences, has held as under :-

¶23

“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

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M-17677 of 2009 4

¶25

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.

¶26

29. 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 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.”

¶27

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, since the parties have amicably settled the matter, which is otherwise in the interest of justice and appears to have been effected to promote peace and harmony amongst the parties, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 333 dated 31.10.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Phagwara City, District Kapurthala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶28

August 18, 2009 pj

¶29

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶30

Crl. Misc. No. M-17677 of 2009 5

Narinder Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and 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

Khem Chand & Others Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Babita and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajwati Rana Vs U.T. Chandigarh

Sudarshna Alias Sudarshna Arora Vs City Corporation Maruti Fin.Ltd.