SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prince Rangra And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 18 January, 2018

CRM No.M-10765 of 2017


Criminal Misc. No. M- 10765 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: January 18 , 2018.

Prince Rangre and others …… PETITIONER(s)


State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.


Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.19

dated 04.12.2014, under Sections 495/494/493/419/420/376/506/120B IPC titled

as ‘Raman Sharma @ Upasna v. Prince Rangra and others’, and all other

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise

arrived at between the parties.

The abovesaid complaint was filed by respondent No.2 due to

matrimonial discord with her husband i.e., petitioner No.1. With the intervention

of respectables and relatives, a compromise was arrived at between the parties,

the terms of which were reduced into writing on 27.02.2017 (Annexure P3).

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 decided to part ways. It is informed that

1 of 4
26-01-2018 17:13:06 :::
CRM No.M-10765 of 2017

petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by petitioner

No.1 and respondent No.2 has been allowed on 11.12.2017 by the learned

Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Photocopy of the said judgment and decree,

filed in Court today, is taken on record subject to just exceptions. It is further

informed that FIR No.135 dated 06.12.2014 under Sections 498A/494/420/120B

IPC, Police Station Longowal has already been quashed by this Court on

23.10.2017 in CRM No.M-10722 of 2017.

This Court on 28.04.2017 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 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 28.04.2017, the parties appeared before the

learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur and their statements were recorded on

10.05.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been amicably resolved

by her with all the accused petitioners out of her own free will without any

pressure. It is stated that petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 has been filed. Half of the settled amount i.e., `9,50,000/- has been

received by her at that time and she would get the remaining amount i.e.,

`9,50,000/- at the time of recording of statements at second motion in the

abovesaid proceedings. Statements of the petitioners in respect to the settlement

2 of 4
26-01-2018 17:13:07 :::
CRM No.M-10765 of 2017

were recorded as well.

As per report dated 15.05.2017 received from the learned District

Sessions Judge, Sangrur, satisfaction is expressed that the compromise between

the parties is voluntary, arrived at between them without any pressure or

coercion. FIR No.174 dated 22.11.2014 under Sections 498A/494/406 IPC is

mentioned to have been registered against petitioners No.1 to 3 at Police Station

City Hoshiarpur as per report of MHC, Police Station Longowal. None of the

petitioners are reported to be proclaimed offenders. Statements of the parties are

appended alongwith the said report.

Mr. Beant Singh Seemar, Advocate for Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 before this Court on

28.04.2017. He had affirmed and verified the factum of settlement between the

parties pursuant to which, parties were directed to record their statements.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Amrik

Singh, submits that as the abovesaid proceedings arise out of a matrimonial

dispute, the State has no objection to the quashing of the criminal complaint in

question as well as all consequential proceedings on the basis of a settlement

arrived at between the 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”.

3 of 4
26-01-2018 17:13:07 :::
CRM No.M-10765 of 2017

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 criminal proceedings pending

before the learned trial court 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 criminal complaint No.19 dated

04.12.2014, under Sections 495/494/493/419/420/376/506/120B IPC titled as

‘Raman Sharma @ Upasna v. Prince Rangra and others’, alongwith all

consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file necessary

application for revival of the proceedings in the abovesaid criminal complaint, in

case any of the facts mentioned as above are not as per the record or the terms

and conditions of settlement between the parties are not adhered to by the

petitioners or it is found that the settlement was a mere ruse to have the aforesaid

proceedings quashed.

January 18 , 2018. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
26-01-2018 17:13:07 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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