Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvir Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 December, 2022
CRM-M-17723-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17723-2022
Date of Decision: 02.12.2022
JASVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS
VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
Present : Mr.Vipul Joshil, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Hittan Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
VIVEK PURI, J.(ORAL)
The petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR No.36 dated
16.03.2020 under Section 498-A IPC registered at Police Station
Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 15.07.2022, the parties were directed to get their statements
recorded before the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court.
In compliance of the order dated 15.07.2022, the statements of
the parties have been recorded and the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Garhshankar has sent the report and the relevant portion
whereof is reproduced here-in-below:-
"I am satisfied that the statement has been
made by parties in the Court with free consent
voluntarily and without undue influence fear. The
original statement of persons as mentioned above
is attached alongwith."
1 of 3
The report also indicates that there are only two accused
and one complainant/victim. None of the accused has been declared as
proclaimed offender
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the
marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on
11.12.2016 but no child has been born from the wedlock. The matrimonial
dispute has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of the
settlement/agreement contained at Annexure P-2. Petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 have instituted a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, wherein statements of the parties have been recorded even at
the stage of second motion but judgment is yet to be pronounced. A sum of
Rs.20 lac has been paid to respondent No.2 on account of permanent
alimony and no other case is pending between the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not disputed the
aforesaid factual aspect(s) and further stated that he has no objection if the
FIR is quashed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived
at a settlement, out of the Court, by way of compromise. The compromise is
without any pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of
the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.
The controversy in the instant case does not indicate that the
same involves heinous or serious offences and furthermore, the matrimonial
dispute has been sought to be amicably settled. Consequently, a deserving
2 of 3
case is made out where the court should exercise the power to secure the
ends of justice.
For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3)
RCR (Criminal) 1052, upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the
ends of justice, FIR No.36 dated 16.03.2020 under Section 498-A IPC
registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise are
ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioners only.
Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the instant
petition stands allowed.
02.12.2022 (VIVEK PURI)
smriti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
