Sumeet Jain vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Anr on 28 July, 2017

CRM-M-25508 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-25508 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: July 28, 2017

Sumeet Jain ……..Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory Chandigarh and another ……Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. K.S.Khehar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory Chandigarh
Respondents No. 2 in person along with
Mr. A.P.S.Guliani, Advocate

*****
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 3 dated 4.9.2015

(Annexure P-1), under Sections 406, 498A of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’

for short), registered at Police Station Women, Sector 17, Chandigarh and

all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise

dated 15.7.2017 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in

question is a result of matrimonial discord between the parties. Nitasha Jain

@ Nitasha Singla is wife of Sumeet Jain. Due to some matrimonial discord

between the parties, FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2. However,

now, the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

1 of 4
05-08-2017 11:13:57 :::
CRM-M-25508 of 2017 (OM) 2

Respondent Nos 2 , who is present in person along with his

counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise (Annexure P2 ) and has

submitted that she has no objection,in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

She also tendered her affidavit in this regard(Annexure P3).

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder

Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,

High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding

of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High

Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of

any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing

is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543, has held as under:-

“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

2 of 4
05-08-2017 11:13:58 :::
CRM-M-25508 of 2017 (OM) 3

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 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 flavour
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 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.”

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 05-08-2017 11:13:58 :::
CRM-M-25508 of 2017 (OM) 4

decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing

these proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 3 dated

4.9.2015 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406, 498A of the Indian Penal

Code IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Sector 17, Chandigarh and

all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
July 28, 2017
arya

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable:Yes/No

4 of 4
05-08-2017 11:13:58 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *