Allowed

Tarun Ahuja and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2024CRM-M/9254/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC. The Court relied on a valid compromise between the parties and a subsequent divorce decree, finding that quashing was necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 15 dated 09.07.2022 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed qua the petitioners.

Tarun Ahuja and Another Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

�� 

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

224 CRM-M-9254-2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 07.05.2024

¶5

Tarun Ahuja and another

¶6

.… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present: - Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Aakansha Gupta, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Ram Karan Agnihotri, Advocate for Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioners, who are husband and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2-complainant have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 15 dated 09.07.2022 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station NRI, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.

¶15

Pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana, to get their statements recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana, has submitted her report along with statements of the

¶16

DIVYANSHI 2024.05.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

�� 

¶18

parties vide letter dated 23.04.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 29.04.2024.

¶19

A perusal of the above said report would show that petitioner No. 1 through special power of attorney, namely, Bharat Bhushan Katyal, petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 through special power of attorney, namely, Harish Bagga 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.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR emanates from the matrimonial dispute between the parties. He further submits that the parties have also been granted divorce vide decree dated 10.04.2024. Learned counsel further submits that as per report, the present petitioners are the only party to the compromise and have never been declared as proclaimed offenders. The petitioners are not involved in any other case.

¶21

Learned State counsel has stated that he has ‘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, Ludhiana, 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

¶24

DIVYANSHI 2024.05.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

�� 

¶26

proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶27

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 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. 15 dated 09.07.2022 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station NRI, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of

¶31

DIVYANSHI 2024.05.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

�� 

¶33

compromise dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶34

07.05.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶35

DIVYANSHI 2024.05.08 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Tarun Ahuja and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Ahuja and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanupriya Vs Rajat Juneja

Praveen Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajat Juneja Vs Bhanupriya

Dinesh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sachin Madan Vs State of Haryana and Another

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others