Allowed

Nitin Wallyat v. State of Punjab and Anothers

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2024CRM-M/23622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 406/498A IPC on the basis of a compromise with his wife. The Judicial Magistrate's report found the compromise genuine and voluntary. Relying on Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh, the High Court quashed the FIR and proceedings qua the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 101 dated 24.06.2021 under Sections 406/498A IPC and related trial proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

Nitin Wallyat Vs State of Punjab and Anothers — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-23622-2024 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

224 CRM-M-23622-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.12.2024

Nitin Wallyat

.… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present: - Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Rishu Madan, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶11

Ms. Vishali, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2, has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 24.06.2021 registered under Sections 406/498A IPC 1860 at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar, Punjab (Annexure P-1) including the proceedings initiated by the trial Court, Jalandhar, Punjab, on the basis of compromise dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Pursuant to the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by this Court, the statement of the petitioner could not be recorded as respondent No.2 made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jalandhar that the petitioner/accused is still harassing her and she requires more time to consider the compromise and behaviour of the petitioner. Vide order dated 01.07.2024 passed by this Court, parties were granted one more opportunity to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial

¶16

DIVYANSHI 2024.12.20 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-23622-2024 (O&M) -2-

¶18

Magistrate 1^st Class, Jalandhar has submitted his report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated 26.09.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 27.09.2024.

¶19

A perusal of the above said report would show that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered statements with respect to the compromise, which have been found to be valid, genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has never been declared as proclaimed offender. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are the only party to the compromise.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now respondent No.2 is residing happily and peacefully with the petitioner along with their minor daughter.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have stated that they have ‘no objection’ in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioners.

¶22

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.

¶23

After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jalandhar, this Court finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner 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.

¶24

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Kulwinder

¶25

DIVYANSHI 2024.12.20 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-23622-2024 (O&M) -3-

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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:-

¶29

“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.”

¶30

In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, this petition is allowed; and FIR No. 101 dated 24.06.2021 registered under Sections 406/498A IPC 1860 at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar, Punjab (Annexure P-1) including the proceedings initiated by the trial Court, Jalandhar, Punjab, on the basis of compromise dated 09.02.2024

¶31

(Annexure P-2), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

¶32

DIVYANSHI 2024.12.20 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M-23622-2024 (O&M) -4-

¶34

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

18.12.2024

¶36

Divyanshi