Husband and in-laws sought quashing of a 498-A/406/323 IPC FIR after a settlement with the complainant. On the magistrate's report confirming a voluntary compromise, and with no objection from the State, the High Court quashed the FIR qua the petitioners relying on Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh.
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
224 CRM-M-10312-2024
Date of Decision: 06.05.2024
Gurjinder Singh and others .… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Chahal, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Gurjinder Singh Thind, Advocate for respondent No.2.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners, who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2 herein have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 149 dated 17.08.2023 registered under Sections 498-A/406/323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise/settlement agreement dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurdaspur, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurdaspur, has submitted her report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 16.04.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.
DIVYANSHI 2024.05.06 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
���������������� ���
A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be without any pressure, coercion, threat or undue influence. There is no other criminal case pending against the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. He further submits that as per report, the petitioners have never been declared as proclaimed offender.
Learned State counsel has stated that he has ‘no objection’ in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurdaspur, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab”, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is
DIVYANSHI 2024.05.06 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
���������������� ���
required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another”, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-inbelow:-
“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 view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 149 dated 17.08.2023 registered under Sections 498-A/406/323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise/settlement agreement dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.
06.05.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
DIVYANSHI 2024.05.06 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 498-A/406/323 IPC should be quashed on the basis of an amicable compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of PunjabRelied on¶22
2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶26
2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurjinder Singh and others
State of Punjab
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
