SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amritpal Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 23 April, 2018

CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [1]

265 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 23.04.2018

Amrit Pal Singh Sangha and others …Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. S.WALIA

Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashok S. Chaudhary, Addl. AG. Haryana.
Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
****

B. S.WALIA, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer is for quashing of FIR No. 1153 dated 17.10.2016

registered under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station

Gurugram, Sadar, District- Gurugram (Annexure P-1), on the basis of

compromise dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) entered into between

petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 before the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court in Mediation Case No. 1011 of 2017 in

CRM No. M-46291 of 2016.

2. Pursuant to the settlement/compromise arrived at between the

parties i.e. Annexure P-2, this Court, vide order dated 12.03.2018 directed

statements of the parties to be recorded by the Ld. Trial Court / Illaqa

Magistrate. Report regarding genuineness of the compromise along with the

statements of the parties has been forwarded by the Court of the Learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram through the Learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram. The report inter alia

1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 10:09:03 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [2]

mentions that the parties have compromised the matter voluntarily without

any pressure or coercion, the compromise is genuine and without any

pressure or undue influence and that out of 5 accused named in the FIR,

accused Khushdeep Kaur has been exonerated by the Investigating Agency

in the final report and as per record none of the accused is a proclaimed

offender. Copy of the settlement/compromise deed as also the report

submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram through

the District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, is taken on record and shall

form part of this order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant states that

parties have compromised the matter and that in terms of the compromise

the parties filed for and have been granted divorce under Section 13-B of

the Hindu Marriage Act, besides the entire amount i.e. Rs. 15,50,000/-

towards permanent alimony and maintenance agreed to be paid by petitioner

No. 1 to respondent No. 2 has already been paid and in the circumstances

the complainant has no objection if FIR No.1153 dated 17.10.2016 under

Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 506 IPC registered against the petitioners at Police

Station Gurugram, Sadar, District- Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all

proceedings connected in respect thereto are quashed.

4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Jitendra Raghuvanshi

Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi Anr. {Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013,

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 6462 of 2012)} and B.S. Joshi and Others

v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported as (2003) 4 SCC 675 are judgments in

support of the proposition for quashing of FIR in such like cases as the same

would be in the ends of Justice. Relevant extract of the decision by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC

2 of 9
06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [3]

675, is as under:-

“2. The question that falls for determination in the

instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of

the High Courts under section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (the Code) read with Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal

proceedings. The scope and ambit of power under

Section 482 has been examined by this Court in a catena

of earlier decisions but in the present case that is

required to be considered in relation to matrimonial

disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the

present case have been on considerable increase in

recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife

under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. not only against the

husband but his other family members also. When such

matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin

the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband

and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending

disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the

High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal

proceedings or the first information report or complaint

filed by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C., can

the prayer be declined on the ground that since the

offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the

Code, therefore, it is not permissible for the court to

quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

3 of 9
06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [4]

10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy 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 the 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

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

4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [5]

implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not

supporting the imputations. It may be either for the

reason that she has resolved disputes 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 the 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? The answer clearly has to be in

the “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 bona fides.

11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao

Chandrojirao Angre 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 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

5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [6]

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 this Court, though in a

slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad,

(2000) 3 SCC 693are very apt for determining the

approach required to be kept in view in a 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

encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties

may ponder over their defaults and terminate their

disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of

6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [7]

fighting it out in a court of law where it 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 498-A in the Indian

Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her

husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A

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

hypertechnical 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 the Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the

High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash

criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section

320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under

Section 482 of the Code.

16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned

judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above

mentioned.”

7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [8]

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides respondent

No. 2 who is present in person and is identified by learned counsel for

respondent No. 2. Instant petition for quashing of the FIR has been filed in

terms of paragraph No. 8 (iv) of the Compromise Annexure P-2.

Respondent No. 2 states that she executed the compromise out of her own

free will and has no objection if the FIR and all connected proceedings in

respect thereto are quashed. Learned Additional Advocate General has also

not opposed the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 1153

dated 17.10.2016 registered under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 506 IPC at

Police Station Gurugram, Sadar, District- Gurugram (Annexure P-1) as also

all connected proceedings in respect thereto, in view of compromise dated

14.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties before the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in Mediation Case No.

1011 of 2017 in CRM No. M-46291 of 2016, statement of respondent No. 2

as well as the report submitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Gurugram through the District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, as well as

law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as referred to above.

6. In view of the position as noted above i.e. of petitioner No. 1

and respondent No. 2 having decided to part company amicably so as to

move on in life and not get bogged down in unending litigation so as to rob

them of their youth as also of chances of ultimate conviction in the

aforementioned FIR being bleak, divorce having been granted to petitioner

No. 1 and respondent No. 2, entire payment of permanent alimony and

maintenance agreed to be paid having been paid by petitioner No. 1 to

respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 not wanting to pursue FIR No. 1153

dated 17.10.2016 under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 506 IPC registered at

8 of 9
06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::
CRM- M-10240 of 2018 (OM) [9]

Police Station Gurugram, Sadar, District- Gurugram (Annexure P-1) any

further in order to have peace of mind and to settle down in life, no useful

purpose would be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue.

Rather non-exercise of the inherent powers vested in this Court to quash

the proceedings would prevent petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 from

settling down in life afresh earlier. Accordingly, FIR No. 1153 dated

17.10.2016 under Sections 323, 34, 498-A, 506 IPC registered at Police

Station Gurugram, Sadar, District- Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all

proceedings connected in respect thereto, are liable to be quashed and are

accordingly quashed.

7. Petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

April 23, 2018 (B. S.WALIA)
Jyoti-IV JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No

9 of 9
06-05-2018 10:09:04 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation