This order quashes an FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 498-A IPC for a petitioner who reached a genuine out-of-court settlement, holding continuation of prosecution as an abuse of process.
Quashing of FIR No. 002 dated 26.01.2018 and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M- 6736 of 2020
Date of Decision: 18.09. 2020
Gurinderpal Singh Multani
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and Another
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Dhruv Dyal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. Pershant Sareen, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR No. 002 dated 26.01.2018, registered under Section 498-A IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Notice of motion was issued.
In compliance of the order, passed by this Court, the parties got their statements recorded before the learned trial court. Consequently, a report sent by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, has been received which is available on record of the case along with the statements of the parties.
Learned Judicial Magistrate has reported that the parties have made their DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.09.19 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and statements voluntarily and without any pressure. The compromise arrived at integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No. M- 6736 of 2020 2
between the parties has been found to be a genuine one.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through 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 because the parties have arrived at an out of the Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure P2). The compromise is without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.
For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 ,
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. 002 dated 26.01.2018, registered under Section 498-A IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioner only.
Consequently, with the observations made above, the instant petition stands allowed.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge
September 18, 2020 “DK”
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.09.19 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. pecuniary jurisdiction can be exercised to quash an FIR under Section 498-A IPC upon out-of-court settlement.
Whether quashing of proceedings is in the interest of justice given a genuine compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶21
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersExplained¶21
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurinderpal Singh Multani
State of Punjab
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
