Allowed

Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Sept 2015CRM-M/13362/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC in a matrimonial dispute. Having found that the parties had arrived at a genuine, voluntary settlement agreement which was executed without pressure and verified by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 21 dated 24.3.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-13362 of 2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-13362 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.9.2015

Hakam Singh

.....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Daljit Singh Virk, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 21 dated 24.3.2011 registered under Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), Police Station Mehna, District Moga and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶18

Notice of motion was issued and thereafter, keeping in view

¶19

AMIT KUMAR 2015.10.01 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-13362 of 2014 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

the nature of dispute, being matrimonial one, matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

¶23

As per report received from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of settlement agreement dated 31.8.2015, which is available on record of the case.

¶24

In compliance of the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 13 lacs by way of bank draft to the complainant, who is present in Court. He further submits that since the matter has been amicably settled, the impugned FIR may be quashed on the basis of the compromise.

¶25

Faced with the above, learned counsel for the complainant also submits that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and all the modalities thereof have also been completed, he has got no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

¶26

Similarly, learned counsel for the State submits that since both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice. It is so said because the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise. The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the

¶28

AMIT KUMAR 2015.10.01 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-13362 of 2014 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.

¶32

The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiji @ Pappu and others versus Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (criminal) 9 and also from the larger Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another reported as 2007 (3) RCR (criminal) 1052 . The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Shiji's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:

¶33

“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 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

¶34

AMIT KUMAR 2015.10.01 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-13362 of 2014 (O&M) 4

¶36

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 noncompoundable. 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 AMIT KUMAR 2015.10.01 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶37

CRM-M-13362 of 2014 (O&M)

¶38

¶39

refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in 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 .”

¶40

The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiji's case (supra) has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later judgments including in the cases of Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat and another, 2012 (12) SCC 401, Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2014 (4) RCR (Crl) 206, Manohar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2014 AIR (SC) 3649 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 .

¶41

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, this Court has satisfied itself that the compromise arrived at between the parties is a genuine one. They have got their statements recorded before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, without any pressure. In view of the genuine compromise arrived at between the parties and also in view of the report received from the Mediation andAMIT KUMAR

¶42

AMIT KUMAR 2015.10.01 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶43

CRM-M-13362 of 2014 (O&M)

¶44

¶45

Conciliation Centre, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the continuation of the prosecution any further would be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law. It would result in wastage of valuable time of the Court because no chance of conviction is left.

¶46

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 21 dated 24.3.2011 registered under Sections498-A/406 IPC, Police Station Mehna, District Moga and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioner only.

¶47

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, instant petition stands allowed.

¶48

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶49

28.9.2015 AK Sharma

¶50

AMIT KUMAR 2015.10.01 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Rohit Gupta Vs State of Punjab

Palwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Davinder Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amrinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.