The High Court quashed FIRs and consequential proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in a matrimonial dispute following a verified compromise between the petitioner and his wife, securing the ends of justice.
FIR No. 76 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings were quashed 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.
CRM-M-26406-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
255 CRM-M-26406-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2024
Yogesh alias Yogi .… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rishu Madan, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ***
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner, who is the husband of the complainantrespondent No.2 herein, has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 76 dated 24.04.2022 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.
Pursuant to the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, to get their statements recorded. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, has submitted her report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 06.08.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.
DIVYANSHI 2024.09.12 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-26406-2024 (O&M) -2-
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are the only party to the compromise and have never been declared as proclaimed offenders. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner.
Learned State counsel has stated that she has ‘no objection’ in case the FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise qua the petitioner.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the file.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, 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.
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 required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure
DIVYANSHI 2024.09.12 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-26406-2024 (O&M) -3-
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. 76 dated 24.04.2022 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure P-2) are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
11.09.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
DIVYANSHI 2024.09.12 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC should be quashed on the basis of a valid post-filing compromise in a matrimonial dispute.
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of PunjabExplained¶21
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶25
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Yogesh alias Yogi
State of Punjab
Divyanshi (as Respondent No. 2)
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
