Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 23, 2018
Sunny Soin and others …..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 108 dated
18.06.2011 under Sections 324, 323, 498A IPC registered at Police
Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and 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 with her husband i.e.,
petitioner No.1.
1 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:25 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 2
It is informed that petition under Section 13B of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ – for short) filed by petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 has since been allowed on 17.11.2017. The entire
settled amount has been received by respondent No. 2. All her claims
qua the petitioner stand settled.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner
No. 2 i.e. the mother-in-law of the complainant could not appear before
the learned trial Court in terms of order dated 21.11.2017 as it came to
light that non-bailable warrants had been issued qua her by the learned
trial Court on 24.03.2017. Bail applications moved by petitioner No. 2
for anticipatory bail in the year 2014 were dismissed by this Court. The
matter was pending investigation. Petitioner No. 2 was kept in column
No. 2 as it is so reflected in order dated 10.10.2016. Petitioner No. 2
has also filed CRM-M-5770-2018 seeking concession of anticipatory
bail, however, respondent No. 2 has clearly stated that she has no
objection to the quashing of aforementioned FIR against all the accused
petitioners in view of the settlement. Therefore, non-appearance of
petitioner No. 2 should not be an impediment to the quashing of this
FIR as petitioner No. 2 undertakes to be bound by the terms and
conditions of the settlement (which have in fact been carried out) and
respondent No. 2 has also expressed that she has no objection to the
quashing of this FIR qua petitioner No. 2 as well.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 affirms the factum of
settlement as well as the averments in respect to petitioner No. 2. It is
submitted that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the
2 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 3
aforementioned FIR against all the petitioners including petitioner
No. 2.
Learned counsel for the State verifies passing of order
dated 10.10.2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana
wherein it is mentioned that petitioner No. 2 was kept in column No. 2
on being found innocent.
This Court on 21.11.2017 directed the parties to appear
before learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their
statements in respect to the above-mentioned compromise. Learned
trial court/Illaqa Magistrate 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/Illaqa Magistrate 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 21.11.2017, the parties appeared
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana and their
statements were recorded on 07.12.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that
she has compromised the matter with all the accused out of her own
free will, without any pressure or undue influence and she no longer
wishes to pursue the proceedings. She specifically stated that petition
under Section 13B of the Act was allowed on 17.11.2017. Respondent
No.2 stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the abovesaid
3 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 4
FIR qua all the petitioners. Statements of all the petitioners except
petitioner No. 2 in respect to the compromise were also recorded.
As per report dated 22.02.2018, received from the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana satisfaction is expressed that
the compromise between the parties is genuine, arrived at out of the
free will of the parties, without any pressure or undue influence. It is
noted that the complainant – respondent No. 2 has specifically stated
that she no objection to the quashing of the aforementioned FIR against
petitioner No. 2 as well. None of the petitioners is reported to be a
proclaimed offender. Statements of the parties are appended alongwith
the said report.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies
the factum of settlement between the parties. It is reiterated that
respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the
abovementioned FIR against the petitioners.
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 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 compromise4 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 5which, 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 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. 108 dated
18.06.2011 under Sections 324, 323, 498A IPC registered at Police
Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana alongwith all
consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.
(Lisa Gill)
February 23, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::