Lakhbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16489 P&H

296         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                             CRM-M-43642-2022
                                             Date of decision: 12.12.2022


LAKHBIR SINGH                                                 ...PETITIONER
                                        VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.                                     ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI

Present:    Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana.

            Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

            ****

VIVEK PURI,J. (ORAL)

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR

No.517 dated 16.06.2019 under Sections 323/406/498-A/34 IPC, registered at

Police Station City, Karnal and all the consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

On 21.09.2022, parties were directed to appear before the Trial

Court/Illaqa Magistrate and get their statements recorded with regard to the

compromise arrived at between them.

The trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the

concerned and send its report regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the

compromise.

In compliance of the order dated 21.09.2022, learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal has recorded the statements of the parties and

submitted the report, the relevant para whereof reads as under:-

"After careful perusal of the statement given on solemn affirmation by the complainant as well as accused vis-a- vis compromise concerning the present case and after

1 of 3

careful analysis of the same, no such material is available on record which can reflect that the compromise has been effected under fear, threat, pressure or coercion. Rather this Court is convinced tht the compromise between the parties in question appears to have been entered into voluntarily without any pressure or inducement.

It is further respectfully submitted that in the above-said FIR, four persons namely Jagtar Singh, Amrik Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Lakhbir Singh were arrayed as accused but Police Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C has ben filed qua accused Lakhbir Singh only. It is further respectfully submitted that none of the accused has been declared proclaimed person. It is further respectfully submitted that none of the accused is involved in any other case. It is further respectfully submitted that in the present case there is only one victim/complainant namely Gurmeet Kaur."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the marriage of the

petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 22.01.2017 and a son has

been born from the wedlock. The matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled

between the parties in terms of compromise deed dated 18.08.2022(Annexure P-

2). The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a

decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act

in terms of judgment and decree dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Family

Court, Karnal. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid to respondent No.2 on

account of permanent alimony and she has received all her articles of Istri Dhan.

The custody of minor child shall remain with respondent No.2. No other case is

pending between the parties.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he has no objection

if FIR is quashed.

After hearing the 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.,

2 of 3

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 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.517 dated 16.06.2019 under Sections 323/406/498-A/34 IPC,

registered at Police Station City, Karnal and all the consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed, however, qua the petitioner only.

Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the instant

petition stands allowed.

12.12.2022                                                     (VIVEK PURI)
renubala                                                          JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
             Whether reportable:         Yes/No




                                    3 of 3