Rajwinder Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 November, 2017

Criminal Misc. No.M- 28457 of 2016 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 28457 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : November 10, 2017

Rajwinder Singh and another …..Petitioners

Versus

State of and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd. Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

***
LISA GILL, J.

This petition has been filed by the brother-in-law and mother-

in-law of respondent No. 3 for quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 26.03.2012

under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell,

Jalandhar city all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

The abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance of respondent

No.2 due to matrimonial discord between his daughter – respondent No. 3

and her husband – Kamaldeep Singh. With the intervention of respectables

and relatives, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the

terms of which were reduced into writing on 22.12.2015 (Annexure P2).

The present petition has been filed on the basis of this compromise.

It is submitted that husband of respondent No. 3 i.e. Kamaldeep

1 of 4
15-11-2017 23:30:58 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 28457 of 2016 (OM) 2

Singh is a proclaimed offender. He is unable to come from Australia though

the compromise has been effected with him as well. Kamaldeep Singh, it is

noted, is not a party to this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a decision of this

Court in Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal)

256 to submit that an FIR can be quashed qua some of the accused persons

on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. Ex-parte divorce

was granted in favour of respondent No. 3 on 15.04.2014. The accused –

Kamaldeep Singh had agreed not to challenge this decree. It is submitted

that in terms of settlement between the parties, the entire settled amount was

handed over to Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate for respondents No.

2 and 3. It is informed that the said amount was handed over to the

complainant by Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate, at the time of

demonitisation of currency. A photocopy of the receipt is taken on record,

subject to just exceptions. Though it is mentioned in the said receipt that the

amount would be deposited again with the counsel after changing the

currency but it is informed that the amount is with the complainant and his

daughter. In this situation, it is submitted that there is no impediment in

quashing of aforementioned FIR.

This Court on 05.05.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court for recording their statements in respect to the above-

mentioned compromise. Learned trial court was directed to submit a report

regarding the genuineness of the compromise, as to whether it has been

arrived at out of the free will and volition of the parties without any

coercion, fear or undue influence. Learned trial court was also directed to

intimate whether any of the petitioners are absconding/proclaimed offenders

2 of 4
15-11-2017 23:30:59 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 28457 of 2016 (OM) 3

and whether any other case is pending against them. Information was

sought as to whether all affected persons are a party to the settlement.

Pursuant to order dated 05.05.2017, the parties appeared before

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar and their statements

were recorded on 22.05.2017. Respondent No. 3 stated that the matter has

been compromised with all the accused persons. Ex-parte divorce was

granted to her on 15.04.2014. The compromise, it is stated, was arrived at

out of her own free will, without any kind of pressure, threat or undue

influence. Respondent No. 3 stated that she has no objection to the quashing

of the abovesaid FIR qua the accused persons. Statements of the petitioners

in respect to the compromise were also recorded.

As per report dated 15.06.2017 received from the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, it is

opined that the compromise between the parties is genuine, arrived at

between the parties without any kind of force and pressure. None of the

petitioners is reported to be a proclaimed offender though Kamaldeep Singh

– husband of respondent No. 2, is a proclaimed offender. He is not a party to

this petition. Statements of the parties are appended alongwith the said

report.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 reaffirms and

verifies the factum of settlement between the parties. It is reiterated that

respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection to the quashing of the

abovementioned FIR against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the State submits that as the abovesaid FIR

arises out of a matrimonial dispute, the State has no objection to the

quashing of this FIR on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the

3 of 4
15-11-2017 23:30:59 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 28457 of 2016 (OM) 4

parties.

In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and

another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this

Court has observed as under:-

“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 Criminal Procedure
Code is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn,
enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is
“finest hour of justice”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State

of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 has observed that it becomes the duty of the

Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it

would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovesaid FIR qua the

present petitioners as no useful purpose would be served by continuance of

the present proceedings. It will merely lead to wastage of precious time of

the court and would be an exercise in futility.

This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No. 18 dated

26.03.2012 under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station

Women Cell, Jalandhar city alongwith all consequential proceedings qua the

present petitioners are, hereby, quashed.

(Lisa Gill)
November 10, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
15-11-2017 23:30:59 :::

Leave a Comment

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