IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of decision:07.02.2019.
RITESH SANGAR … Petitioner
STATE OF PUNJAB ANR …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Nonefor respondent No.2.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of F.I.R. No.130 dated 12.09.2013 registered under Sections 498-
A, 406, 506 of IPC at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of compromise dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure P-2).
This Court vide order dated 30.11.2018 had directed the parties
to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements
recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the
genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot and got their statements
recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has
submitted report dated 11.01.2019 to the effect that the compromise has
1 of 3
17-02-2019 10:07:31 :::
been effected between the parties with their free will and without any
pressure or coercion.
Though today none has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Rabia Sangar, but no prejudice
would be caused to her as she has already made her statement with regard to
compromise before learned Magistrate on 07.01.2019. The same is
reproduced as under:-
“That I had lodged FIR no.130 dated 12.09.2013, U/s
498-A, 406, 506 of IPC, PS Division No.2, Pathankot, against
the accused Ritesh Sangar. That I have compromised/settled the
matter with accused and as per the compromise we have also
filed petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. I have
no objection if the FIR no.130 dated 12.09.2013, U/s 498A,
406, 506 of IPC, PS Division No.2, Pathankot, is quashed. That
I am the complainant in the said F.I.R. and today I am giving
my statement out of my free will and consent, without any
coercion and there is no pressure on me.”
Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of
compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to
continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private
Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu and others-2014 (4) RCR (Criminal)
206 has held that the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature,
or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered
into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of
conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section
482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution.
2 of 3
17-02-2019 10:07:32 :::
Thus, following the principles laid down by the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of
Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others
(2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in the light of Gold Quest International Private
Limited’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.130 dated
12.09.2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 of IPC at Police
Station Division No.2, District Pathankot (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of
compromise dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure P-2), however, that would be
subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Poor
Patients’ Welfare Fund of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education
and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, within 15 days from today.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
17-02-2019 10:07:32 :::