SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurnaz Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 January, 2019

CRM-M No.7378 of 2018 (OM)
CRM-M No.12895 of 2018 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Decided on: 24.01.2019
1. CRM-M No.7378 of 2018 (OM)

Gurnaz Kaur
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
….Respondents

2. CRM-M No.12895 of 2018 (OM)

Gagandeep Kumar
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present : Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-7378-2018)

Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-12895-2018)

Mr. M.S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate
for respondent No.2 (in both the petitions)

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner(s) have prayed for quashing of FIR No.72

dated 21.06.2017, for offence punishable under Sections 454, 380 of

the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) (Section 411 IPC added later)

registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar

(Annexure P1) and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

1 of 6
11-02-2019 06:29:46 :::
CRM-M No.7378 of 2018 (OM)
CRM-M No.12895 of 2018 (OM) 2

Vide orders dated 21.02.2018 (passed in CRM-M No.7378

of 2018) and dated 24.04.2018 (passed in CRM-M No.12895 of 2018),

the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa

Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness

of the compromise.

In compliance of the aforesaid orders, both the petitioners

i.e. Gurnaz Kaur and Gagandeep Kumar as well as the complainant

have appeared before the trial Court to get their statements recorded

with regard to the compromise.

In the statement of the complainant, it has come that the

petitioner – Gurnaz Kaur is his daughter-in-law, who is married to his

son Lovedeep Singh and a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act has been filed and an amount of Rs.10 lacs has

been paid to the petitioner – Gurnaz Kaur and the remaining amount

will be paid at the time of recording the proceedings in second motion.

It is further stated that the complainant has no objection if the present

FIR is quashed on the basis of the compromise Ex.C1.

Similar report has been received in the other case, in which

the trial Court has recorded a finding that both the parties have

amicably settled their dispute and the complainant have no objection, if

the FIR is quashed.

As per the report, there are only 02 accused and only one

victim i.e. respondent No.2 – Joginder Pal Singh and as per the reports

dated 27.03.2018 and dated 07.05.2018 the statement of both the

aforesaid petitioners and respondent No.2 have been recorded and

2 of 6
11-02-2019 06:29:46 :::
CRM-M No.7378 of 2018 (OM)
CRM-M No.12895 of 2018 (OM) 3

statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have

voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the

parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure,

threat or coercion and out of their free will.

Counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that no other

criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner

has been declared as proclaimed offender.

Counsel for the State assisted with counsel for the

respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived

at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case

file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this

Court is of the opinion that the matter has been amicably settled

between the petitioner and respondent/victims, who have decided to

bury their dispute and live in peace.

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 prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was

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.

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

3 of 6
11-02-2019 06:29:46 :::
CRM-M No.7378 of 2018 (OM)
CRM-M No.12895 of 2018 (OM) 4

State of Punjab and another”, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 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 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
predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership

4 of 6
11-02-2019 06:29:46 :::
CRM-M No.7378 of 2018 (OM)
CRM-M No.12895 of 2018 (OM) 5

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

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

the criminal proceedings to continue.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

petition is allowed and FIR No.72 dated 21.06.2017, for offence

punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 IPC registered at Police

Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar and proceedings emanating

therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners i.e. Gurnaz

Kaur and Gagandeep Kumar, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-

5 of 6
11-02-2019 06:29:46 :::
CRM-M No.7378 of 2018 (OM)
CRM-M No.12895 of 2018 (OM) 6

to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Rupnagar.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
24.01.2019
yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

6 of 6
11-02-2019 06:29:46 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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