IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of Decision :- 03.07.2018
Vivek Goyal …Petitioner
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 :::
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 :::
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
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
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith
ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed.
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
08-07-2018 07:49:21 :::