Single judge direction quashing FIR No. 42 under IPC Sections 406-498-A in matrimonial dispute as parties reached genuine compromise, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite non-compoundable nature of offences.
FIR No. 42 dated 1.6.2015 under Sections 406-498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M 21738/2015
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:03.12.2015
Vikas Kumar and another
.............Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Sachin Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners
Mz.Rimplejeet Kaur,AAG Punjab
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Prayer is for quashing of FIR no.42 dated 1.6.2015 under Sections 406-498-A IPC, PS Women,Distt.Amritsar City and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Vide order dated 21.9.2015 parties were directed to get their statements recorded regarding genuineness of the compromise.
Now learned CJM,Amritsar vide her report dated 28.10.2015 (taken on record as Mark-A) has reported that the parties have willfully settled their differences and reached at bonafide compromise without any pressure and the same seems to be genuine.
Learned State counsel informs that so far challan has not been presented.
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
117
CRM-M 21738/2015
The matter herein relates to matrimonial dispute between complainant wife and her husband/father-in-law.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675, B.S.Joshi and others v State of Haryana and another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non-compoundable offences. The relevant extract reads as under:-
“The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”
Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T.2008(9) SC 192
Nikhil Merchant v Central Bureau of Investigation and Another RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
CRM-M 21738/2015
117
while relying upon its decision in B.S.Joshi' s case (supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise.
Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
Madan Mohan Abot v State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 , the relevant extract of which is as under:-
“We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
CRM-M 21738/2015
117
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR no.42
dated 1.6.2015 under Sections 406-498-A IPC, PS Women,Distt.Amritsar City and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
03.12.2015. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.12.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable matrimonial offences based on a genuine compromise between parties.
Whether Section 320 Cr.P.C. limits the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others v State of HaryanaRelied on¶22
(2003)4 SCC 675, B.S.Joshi and others v State of Haryana and another · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh and others v State of PunjabRelied on¶23
Kulwinder Singh and others v State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 1052
Nikhil Merchant v Central Bureau of InvestigationDistinguished¶25
J.T.2008(9) SC 192 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abot v State of PunjabReferred¶31
Madan Mohan Abot v State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikas Kumar
State of Punjab
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
