Allowed

Rohit Duggal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2015CRM-M/11083/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two petitions seeking quashing of FIR No. 219 under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Relying on a voluntary compromise between parties confirmed by the Magistrate, the Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, holding that continuation would cause oppression and injustice despite the disputed nature of the offences.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 219 dated 22.11.2012 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Rohit Duggal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-11083 of 2014 Crl. Misc. No. M-40234 of 2014

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

1. Crl. Misc. No. M-11083 of 2014 Date of Decision: 24.08.2015.

¶5

Rohit Duggal and others ........Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

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

¶8

2. Crl. Misc. No. M-40234 of 2014

¶9

Shelly Khurana ........Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Present: Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioners. (In CRM-M-11083 of 2014)

¶14

Mr. Arshinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Anterpreeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. (In CRM-M-40234 of 2014)

¶15

Mr. J.S.Sekhon, AAG, Punjab

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 219 dated 22.11.2012, under Section 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station City Kharar, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

¶18

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-11083 of 2014 Crl. Misc. No. M-40234 of 2014

¶20

-2 -

¶21

compromise effected between the parties.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶23

Vide order dated 1.12.2014 (in CRM-M-11083 of 2014), Area Magistrate was directed to record the statements of the parties and send its report with regard to genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties.

¶24

In pursuance to the said order, the Magistrate after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the compromise effected between the parties was voluntary and without any pressure or undue influence.

¶25

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in

¶26

Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3)

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

“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

¶31

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

Crl. Misc. No. M-11083 of 2014 Crl. Misc. No. M-40234 of 2014

¶33

-3 -

¶34

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 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

¶35

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

¶36

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶37

Crl. Misc. No. M-11083 of 2014 Crl. Misc. No. M-40234 of 2014

¶38

-4 -

¶39

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 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.”

¶40

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.

¶41

Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed. FIR

¶42

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶43

-5 -

¶44

Crl. Misc. No. M-11083 of 2014 Crl. Misc. No. M-40234 of 2014

¶45

No. 219 dated 22.11.2012, under Section 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station City Kharar, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶46

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶47

August 24, 2015 Gurpreet

¶48

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rohit Duggal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Duggal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

Satish Bhiana & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Varinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab

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

Gursharan Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.