Allowed

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2012CRM-M/29941/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The court held that given a genuine compromise in the matrimonial dispute and the filing of a divorce decree, continuing the prosecution would be oppressive and unfair.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR No.94 dated 21.07.2010 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed; the petitioner was acquitted.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-29941 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-29941 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:10.12.2012

¶4

Amrik Singh .....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶8

Present: Mr.Har Naresh Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Ms.Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

¶12

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶13

The crux of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Randip Kaur, daughter of Gurmeet Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused Amrik Singh, vide FIR No.94 dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Dera Bassi, District S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali.

¶14

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report(challan). The petitioner-accused was accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of the indicated offence by the trial

¶15

CRM No.M-29941 of 2012 2

¶16

court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

¶17

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by way of compromise dated 30.08.2012(Annexure P-2).

¶18

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia , pleading that with the intervention of respectables and other relatives, both the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes by way of compromise (Annexure P-2). They have redressed all their grievances. As per compromise, both the parties have decided to withdraw their cases filed against each other. They want to live with peace and harmony in future and buried all ill-will. The complainant has no objection, if the present criminal case registered against the petitioner-accused, by means of impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinabove.

¶19

During the course of preliminary hearing, the Magistrate was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure P-2), by this Court, by virtue of order dated September 25, 2012.

¶20

In compliance thereof, having recorded the statements of the

¶21

CRM No.M-29941 of 2012 3

¶22

concerned parties, the Magistrate concluded that the compromise effected between the parties is valid, genuine and voluntarily, vide his report bearing No.1733 dated 29.11.2012.

¶23

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, vide compromise dated 30.08.2012(Annexure P-2). The factum of compromise is also reiterated in the report of the Magistrate.

¶24

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now wellsettled.

¶25

An identical question (recently) came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010, titled as Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another. , decided on September 24, 2012. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (para 57) as under:-

¶26

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no

¶27

CRM No.M-29941 of 2012

¶28

¶29

category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its

¶30

CRM No.M-29941 of 2012 5

¶31

jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶32

Above being the legal position and the material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

¶33

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶34

As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes with the intervention of respectables and relatives vide compromise(Annexure P-2), with their own consent and without any kind of pressure or inducement. They have filed a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant does not want to further pursue the matter. She has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the Magistrate in his indicated report. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution

¶35

CRM No.M-29941 of 2012 6

¶36

to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case(supra) , “mutatis mutandis” is attracted to the facts

¶37

of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶38

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.94 dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioner-accused is accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against him, in this relevant context.

¶39

December 10, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh 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

Baljit Singh @ Bita Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harpreet Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sahib Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gaurav Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Umar Mohammad Vs Memuna and Anr.

Naresh Kumar @ Bittu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.