Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chaman Lal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 March, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9847-2021
Date of Decision : 18.03.2021
Chaman Lal and others …Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia
Present : Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Aviraj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
B.S. Walia, J.
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing
of FIR No.0011 dated 11.01.2018, registered under Sections 406, 498-A,
IPC at Police Station, City Phagwara, District Kapurthala, and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of compromise,
Annexure P/2, dated 05.11.2019, recorded before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court as also in view of well settled law.
2. Learned counsel contends that due to incompatibility and
temperamental differences, there were matrimonial disputes between the
parties, as a result of which the relationship between the parties became
strained, eventually leading to respondent No.2 lodging FIR No.0011 dated
11.01.2018, U/s 406, 498-A of IPC, at Police Station, City Phagwara,
District Kapurthala. However, at the time of hearing the petition for bail
filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2, this Court referred the matter to the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and during the mediation
proceedings, the parties arrived at a compromise and the matter stands
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:26 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [2]
amicably settled, with the petitioners having agreed to pay Rs.5.50 Lacs to
respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of all claims, out of which,
Rs.3,00,000/- stands paid to respondent No. 2 with the remaining
Rs.2,50,000/ to be paid at the time of statements in the present case and
further of respondent No.2 having agreed that she would accept the decree of
divorce obtained by petitioner No.3 and would also withdraw all criminal as
well as civil proceedings filed by her against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on
03.03.2021, while noticing the stand of the learned Addl. AG, Punjab that he
did not wish to file reply in view of the amicable settlement of the dispute
amongst the parties as well as report of the learned Mediator attached to the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court dated 05.11.2019 besides
the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners as also the stand of
learned counsel for respondent No.2 that he had no objection if the FIR and
all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed, the matter
was adjourned to 18.03.2021, for consideration.
4. Learned AAG, Punjab, as well as learned counsel for
respondent No.2 admit amicable settlement of the dispute as per compromise
/ settlement recorded before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this
Court, Annexure P/2 dated 05.11.2019 as also that they have no objection, if
the aforementioned FIR as well as consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed in view of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court
in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543,
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another 2003 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 888 as well as Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [3]
(Criminal) 1052. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision’s is
reproduced as under :-
Extract of the decision in Gian Singh’s case (supra)
“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 what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and offender in relation to the offences under
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [4]
special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavor stand on different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [5]
that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”
Extract of the decision in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra)
“10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors.
[(1977) 2 SCC 699], considering the scope of inherent
power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held
that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the
conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed
that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and the like would
justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the
interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher
than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be
administered according to laws made by the legislature.
This Court said that the compelling necessity for making
these observations is that without a proper realisation of
the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice
between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible
to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was
no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted
of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [6]
where the wife does not support the imputations made in
the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now
she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at
her instance due to temperamental differences and
implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not
supporting the imputations. It may be either for the
reason that she has resolved disputed with her husband
and his other family members and as a result thereof she
has again started living with her husband with whom she
earlier had differences or she has willingly parted
company and is living happily on her own or has married
someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved
by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the
prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such
eventuality, there would almost be no chance of
conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise
power of quashing on the ground that it would be
permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable
offences. Answer clearly has to be in ‘negative’. It would,
however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts
declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons
including lack of bonafides.
11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC
692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of
quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to
take into consideration any special features which appear
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [7]
in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient
and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of
an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the
proceedings.
12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are
evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by the Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad &
Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the
approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial
dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an
outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life
and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [8]
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where is takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
“young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her
husband or by relatives of her husband. Sections 498A
was added with a view to punishing a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or
her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and
would act against interests of women and against the
object for which this provision was added. There is every
likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash
the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the object of
Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.”
Extract of the decision in Kulwinder Singh’s case
(supra)
“39. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine
qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul
of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in
turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [9]
it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have
their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant
matters, commercial transactions and other such matters
can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a
compromise, but this is not to say that the power is
limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid
rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in
the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict
eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up
during the course of a litigation.
40. The only inevitable conclusion from the above
discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the
Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court
under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to
matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide
power to quash the proceedings even in non-
compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under
Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse
of law and to secure the ends of justice.”
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the record. The law encourages amicable settlement of matrimonial litigation
instead of the parties fighting it out in courts for years and in the process
losing out on the prime of their youth in chasing their “cases” in different
courts. Admittedly in the eventuality of compromise of a dispute, both sides
stand to gain as the compromise not only brings peace and harmony between
the parties, but also restores tranquility in society. Bringing an end to the
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
CRM-M-9847-2021 [10]
criminal case would enable the parties to move on and rebuild their life.
Besides, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ultimate chances of a
conviction are bleak. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by
allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. In the light of the position
noted above and to secure the ends of justice, I am of the considered view
that there is no impediment in the way of this Court in exercising its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom.
6. Accordingly, in the light of the position as noted above, the
instant petition is allowed. FIR No.0011 dated 11.01.2018, registered under
Sections 406, 498-A of IPC at Police Station City Phagwara, District
Kapurthala along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom,
are quashed. Parties are directed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
compromise, Annexure P/2, dated 05.11.2019, arrived at between the parties
before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Failure to adhere
to the same would not only render the defaulting party liable for proceedings
under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but would also entitle the aggrieved
party to take out appropriate proceedings in respect thereto in accordance
with law.
7. Petition allowed in the aforementioned terms.
(B.S. Walia)
Judge
March 18, 2021
‘rajesh’
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 25-08-2021 19:17:27 :::
Comments