Sunny Puri And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16496 P&H

CRM-M-53189-2021                                               -1-

290   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-53189-2021
                                              Date of Decision: 12.12.2022


SUNNY PURI AND OTHERS                                ... PETITIONERS

                          V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                          ... RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI

Present:    Mr. Govind Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

            Mr. Karanvir Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2.

            ***

VIVEK PURI, J. (ORAL)

Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of

FIR No.26 dated 04.02.2019, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at

Women Police Station, Police Commissionerate District Ludhiana and all

the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of

compromise (Annexure P-2).

On 20.12.2021 the parties were directed to appear before the

Trial Court 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 of

the compromise.

In compliance of the order dated 20.12.2021, learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana has recorded the statements of the parties

and submitted his report, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

1 of 3

"It is respectfully submitted that as per the statement of Investigating Officer and report of the concerned Ahlmad, there are three accused arrayed in the FIR. There is only one complainant/victim namely Sugandhi Puri @ Sugandhi Batta. The accused and complainant have appeared in the court to get recorded their statements regarding compromise. Accused have not declared as Proclaimed Offender nor they are involved in any other criminal case.

2. So, from the statements of the parties, it appears to the court that the parties have compromised the matter out of their free Will, voluntarily, without any sort of pressure, coercion and fear."

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that though the

allegations were levelled against the petitioners and three other relatives but

the FIR has been registered only against the petitioners. The marriage of

petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 09.03.2012 and a

daughter has been born from the wedlock. The matrimonial dispute has been

amicably settled between the parties in terms of compromise (Annexure P-

2). The marriage of petitioner No.1 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/decree dated 30.05.2022 passed by the

learned Family Court, Ludhiana. A sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs has been paid to

respondent No.2 on account of permanent alimony. The custody of the

minor daughter shall remain with respondent No.2. No other case is pending

between the parties.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has acknowledged this

fact and has stated that he has no objection if the aforementioned FIR is

quashed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through

2 of 3

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 (Annexure P-2).

The compromise is without any pressure and is 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.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 26

dated 04.02.2019, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Women

Police Station, Police Commissionerate District Ludhiana and all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners

only.

12.12.2022                                            (VIVEK PURI)
Janki                                                    JUDGE

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

                                3 of 3