Allowed

Sankalap Bali and Ors. v. State of Punjab Adn Arn

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2014CRM-M/15571/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered for matrimonial disputes. The High Court, noting an amicable settlement, a mutual consent divorce decree, and full or agreed-upon payment of compromise dues, quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 146/2011 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Sankalap Bali and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-15571 of 2013

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-15571 of 2013 Date of Decision: 14.10.2014.

¶5

Dr. Sankalap Bali and others

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. Satbir S. Katnoria, Advocate for Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482

¶15

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 146/2011 dated 10.12.2011, under Section 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for respondent No. 2 have submitted that now the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Learned counsel have further submitted that the parties have got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent.

¶17

Vide order dated 5.3.2014, Trial Court was directed to

¶18

record the statement of respondent No. 2 and send its report GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-15571 of 2013

¶20

-2 -

¶21

with regard to genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶22

Statement of respondent No. 2 recorded by the Trial Court reads as under:-

¶23

“State that I have reached compromise with accused Dr. Sankalap Bali, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bali and Smt. Chander Prabha Bali with my own free will, without any threat, coercion or pressure. I am deposing in the Court today with my own free will, without any threat, coercion or pressure. On the basis of compromise, accused Dr. Sankalap Bali, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bali and Smt. Chander Prabha Bali have filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of FIR No. 146 dated 10.12.2011 under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Phagwara. The matter between us has been finalized. As per compromise, I had to receive Rs. 26,00,000/- from accused Dr. Sankalap Bali in installments. I have already received Rs. 20,00,000/- in three installments from accused Dr. Sankalap Bali and Rs. 6,00,000/- is still due against accused Dr. Sankalap Bali, I have no objection if the FIR against accused Dr. Sankalap Bali, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bali and Smt. Chander Prabha Bali is quashed, but before quashing of FIR, I may be paid my remaining amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-.”

¶24

Today, respondent No. 2 is present in person and she

¶25

has received a draft in the sum of ` 6,00,000/- from the counsel

¶26

GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M-15571 of 2013 -3 -

¶28

for the petitioners and has submitted that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed as she has received the entire payment in terms of the compromise.

¶29

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.

¶30

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.

¶31

State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543 , has held as under:-

¶32

“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

¶33

GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

Crl. Misc. No. M-15571 of 2013

¶35

-4 -

¶36

depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no 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 personal 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

¶37

GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

Crl. Misc. No. M-15571 of 2013

¶39

-5 -

¶40

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 jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶41

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.

¶42

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 146/2011 dated 10.12.2011, under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶43

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶44

October 14, 2014 Gurpreet

¶45

GURPREET SINGH 2014.10.17 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sankalap Bali and Ors. v. State of Punjab Adn Arn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankalap Bali and Ors. v. State of Punjab Adn Arn

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

Hari Krishan Vs Rajinder Singh

Gurjit Singh @ Jeeta Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Resham Singh Vs Gulab Singh and Ors.

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

Manoj Vs State of Haryana & Anr.