Allowed

Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Prabhjeet Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2012CRM-M/219/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed petitions for quashing criminal complaints and consequential orders arising from a matrimonial dispute. Relying on Section 482 Cr.P.C. and precedents, the court held that since the parties had reached an amicable settlement regarding mutual divorce and custody, continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process and futile, regardless of the offences being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No. 777/10.9.2008/13.9.2008 titled 'Prabhjit Kaur Vs. Sukhjit Singh and others' and summoning order dated 19.1.2009 along with consequential proceedings are quashed with liberty to revive if

Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Prabhjeet Kaur @… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1 -

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

1. Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.11.2012.

¶5

Gurmeet Kaur and another ........Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Prabhjeet Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur and another ......Respondents

¶8

2. Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶9

Sandeep Singh ........Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Prabhjeet Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur and another ......Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Present: Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Manish Parbhakar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶15

Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint No. 777/10.9.2008/13.9.2008 titled 'Prabhjit Kaur Vs. Sukhjit Singh and others' (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶18

During the pendency of the petitions, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The parties have amicably settled their disputes. The terms of the settlement read

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶20

-2 -

¶21

as under:-

¶22

“ Settlement Agreement

¶23

1. Both the parties have agreed to separate from each other by mutual divorce for which necessary steps shall be taken by both the parties in accordance with law.

¶24

2. Respondent No.1-Prabhjot Kaur shall be paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only) by Tarlok Singh-fatherin-law of the respondent No.1. This amount shall be paid by Tarlok Singh on behalf of other co-accused including his son Sh. Sukhjit Singh. This amount shall be full and final settlement of all claims and rights between the parties.

¶25

3. Respondent No.1 shall have no right or claim against her husband, petitioner or their family.

¶26

4. The agreed amount shall be paid by bank draft in the name of Smt. Prabhjot Kaur-respondent No.1 and a photocopy of the draft and receipt given by respondent No.1 shall be placed on the Court file by the petitioners.

¶27

5. The amount shall be paid in three installments, first installment of Rs.2.65 Lacs shall be paid within one month and second installment of Rs. 1.6 lacs shall be paid within three months and third installment shall be paid within 6 months from today.

¶28

6. The respondent No.1 shall be bound to cooperate

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶30

-3 -

¶31

with her husband and sign relevant documents and to appear in the Court for the grant of mutual divorce as and when her husband come back from abroad to India or required by Court.

¶32

7. Respondent No.1 shall have also liberty to file a divorce petition for dissolution of her marriage in accordance with law and her husband shall be bound to cooperate for grant of divorce in accordance with law.

¶33

8. The custody of son-Sahilpreet Singh shall remain with the family of Sukhjeet Singh and respondent No.1 shall have no claim for his custody. However, respondent No.1-mother of minor shall have right to visit her son twice a month subject to wishes of the child and petitioners and her husband's family shall cooperate and will have no objection for the same.

¶34

9. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to take her son once in two months from the school or from the petitioners on Saturday and respondent No.1 shall be bound to return the child on the next day on Sunday before 6 P.M.

¶35

10.All the pending litigation, complaints etc. shall be withdrawn by respective parties and they have further agreed not to file any new complaint or litigation against each other.

¶36

11.Both the parties agreed not to interfere or harass each other in any manner.

¶37

-4 -

¶38

Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, respondent No.1 has no objection if the complaint in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶40

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.

¶41

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:-

¶42

“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 power which independently

¶43

-5 -

¶44

Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶45

lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶46

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.”

¶47

In case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika

¶48

and another 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.13 has held as under:-

¶49

It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and

¶50

Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶51

-6 -

¶52

the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in

¶53

-7 -

¶54

Crl. Misc. No. M-219 of 2011 (O&M) Crl. Misc. No. M-26649 of 2011 (O&M)

¶55

declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.”

¶56

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶57

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Complaint No. 777/10.9.2008/13.9.2008 titled 'Prabhjit Kaur Vs. Sukhjit Singh and others' (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. However, in case any of the parties fail to comply with any of the conditions of the settlement/agreement, the parties would be at liberty to revive the petitions.

¶58

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶59

November 02, 2012 Gurpreet

Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Prabhjeet Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Prabhjeet Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur & 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

Mukesh Kumar @ Mona Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Charan Kamal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Harwinder Singh Kohli Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Tarsem Shukla and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amarjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.