High Court quashed FIR 247 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in matrimonial dispute upon mutual compromise and divorce application, ruling further proceedings futile and abuse of process.
FIR No. 247 dated 23.9.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-15106 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 24, 2010
Manu Sareen and others
...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Arun Singla,Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondent No.2 in person
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 247 dated 23.9.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure P2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise (Anneuxre P2). Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have applied for divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties have also arrived at a settlement qua istridhan, articles and maintenance.
Crl. Misc. No. M-15106 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. Respondent No.2 has tendered her affidavit,as per which, she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-
“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the
Crl. Misc. No. M-15106 of 2010 (O&M) -3-
power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?
24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated
hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 247 dated 23.9.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana (Annexure P1) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed .
( Sabina ) Judge
August 24,2010
arya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in matrimonial dispute can be quashed upon mutual compromise.
Whether continuance of criminal proceedings after settlement serves any useful purpose.
Whether High Court can quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process in matrimonial dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of PunjabReferred¶16
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationExplained¶17
Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 · Who else cites this
B.S. JoshiReferred¶21
B.S.Joshi's case
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manu Sareen and others
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
