SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vivek Goyal vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 3 July, 2018

CRM-M-2638-2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-2638-2018
Date of Decision :- 03.07.2018

Vivek Goyal …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present:- Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.

****
H.S. MADAAN, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner – Vivek Goyal has brought the instant petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 71 dated 18.06.2016, for offences

under Sections 406 and 498A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell,

Ludhiana, against him, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between him and

complainant Suman Sharma – arrayed as respondent No.2.

When the petition came up for hearing on 22.01.2018, notice of

motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 – State of Punjab through

State counsel, whereas respondent No.2 through Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate,

for Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate had put in appearance. Then in light of the

contention that parties have since effected compromise, they were directed to put

in appearance before the trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to

compromise and the trial Court was directed to send a report to this Court.

1 of 3
08-07-2018 07:49:20 :::
CRM-M-2638-2018 2

Report has been received from Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Ludhiana, through District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in terms of which

complainant-Suman Sharma and accused, namely, Vivek Goyal had appeared

there and their statements were recorded, in terms of which they have admitted to

have entered into a voluntary compromise, with free will, without any pressure,

threat or undue influence. Further complainant has stated that she has no

objection if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. There is nothing on

record to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the

parties. Alongwith the report statement of the complainant and the accused, in

original, have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State

counsel, besides going through the record.

The dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, which

appears to have been arrived at between them voluntarily without any threat or

coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and

others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in

para 28, it has been held 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 Cr.P.C.
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”.”

It has been observed that High Court has power to quash prosecution

in order to achieve ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law. Though

such powers are unlimited but those are to be exercised sparingly and with utmost

care and caution. Though there is no statutory bar which can effect the inherent

power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2 of 3
08-07-2018 07:49:21 :::
CRM-M-2638-2018 3

The case is at stage of investigation. As stated, the spouse have filed

a petition for divorce by mutual consent in the Court of competent jurisdiction,

which is fixed for recording statements of the petitioners on 04.07.2018 on second

motion.

The compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society

and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary proceedings

exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a fit case to exercise

such powers.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith

ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
03.07.2018
Dinesh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
08-07-2018 07:49:21 :::

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 © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation