The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and subsequent proceedings after the complainant and accused entered into a compromise and desired to live in peace.
FIR No.84 dated 24.07.1998 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc.No.M 12883 of 2010(O&M) # 1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH .
Crl. Misc.No.M 12883 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision:-24.08.2010
. Raj Kumar & Ors
...... Petitioners .
Versus
. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr
. ...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present:Mr. Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 assisted by SI Anil Kumar, Women Cell, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
Mr. Shubhjot Singh Chadha, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Crl. Misc.No.23155 of 2010
Application under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking exemption
from filing the certified copy of the FIR, the statement(Annexure P-1) and the order dated 21.4.2010(Annexure P-2) is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc.No.M 12883 of 2010
Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of
Crl. Misc.No.M 12883 of 2010(O&M) # 2#
FIR No.84 dated 24.07.1998 under sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 6.5.2010 arrived at between the accused/petitioners and the complainant.
In the FIR complainant Manju Srivastav had made allegations against the accused/petitioners that they used to harass and maltreat her on account of bringing insufficient dowry articles. Said Manju Srivastav is present and stated that she has no objection if in terms of the compromise dated 6.5.2010, the aforesaid FIR and all the subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed.
Complainant Manju Srivastav and accused Raj Kumar Srivastav both are present in the court and they have been identified by their counsel Mr. Vinod Kumar Arya and Mr. Shubhjot Singh Chadha, Advocates respectively.
Both the complainant as well as the accused have admitted the contents of the compromise and identified their signatures on the compromise(Annexure P-2). Statements of complainant as well as accused-petitioner no.1 have been recorded separately.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of noncompoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:-
“The only inevitable conclusion from the
Crl. Misc.No.M 12883 of 2010(O&M) # 3#
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.”
Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:-
“We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
Keeping In view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.
Crl. Misc.No.M 12883 of 2010(O&M) # 4#
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.84 dated 24.07.1998 under sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
24th August, 2010 Vinay.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash an FIR disclosing non-compoundable offences arising from a cause of action of a purely personal nature.
Whether a settlement reached between the parties precludes the institution of criminal proceedings for dowry harassment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶26
Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Madan Mohan Abot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶30
Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raj Kumar & Ors
State of U.T., Chandigarh
Manju Srivastav
Raj Kumar Srivastav
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
