Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Puri And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(257) CRM-M-40666-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.12.2022
Judgement reserved on: 1.12.2022
Karan Puri & others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Present:- Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate and
Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of FIR No.270 dated 9.10.2019 under Sections 498-A,
406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Civil Lines,
Patiala, District Patiala along with all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.9.2020.
FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
No.2, wherein it was alleged that she was married to petitioner no.1 Karan
Puri on 7.2.2011 and the marriage was performed with a great pomp and
show, however, thereafter a matrimonial discord took place between
husband and wife and the rift kept on widening between both of them,
which finally culminated in lodging of the present FIR. However, with the
intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at a settlement and
they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from the compromise
1 of 7
CRM-M-40666-2020 (O&M) -2-
dated 12.12.2019 which was signed by both the sides. A perusal of the
same would reveal that both the parties drawn various terms and conditions
in the settlement arrived at. They agreed to file a petition under Section 13-
B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. They further
agreed to file a petition for quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of
compromise. It was further agreed that the blank cheques signed by the
complainant/respondent no.2 would not be misused by the petitioners or
through any other person to get any claim on the basis of the said cheques
from the complainant. As a result both the parties filed a petition under
Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and the marriage in question was
dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 21.9.2020.
Learned counsel for the parties have raised their respective
arguments. The only controversy which remains to be solved is with regard
to handing over the blank cheques to the complainant as agreed by the
petitioners. However, it has been argued before this court that the cheques
are not traceable and hence the petitioners are not in a position to handover
the same to the complainant. It was emphatically argued that the petitioners
have already given an undertaking that in any eventuality if the cheques are
misused by them or any other person in future, it would be the petitioners
who would be liable and the complainant would have no liability
whatsoever for the same. After a lengthy argument before this court,
learned counsel for the parties have mutually agreed that the concerned
bank to which all the 19 cheques belong should be informed about the
passing of this order with the request that in case in future any of these
cheques issued by the complainant to the petitioners is presented by
2 of 7
CRM-M-40666-2020 (O&M) -3-
petitioners or any other person, the bank would immediately stop the
payment of the same. The bank Manager would immediately inform the
complainant about the presentation of the cheque, if any.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that both the parties have amicably resolved all the
outstanding issues. The marriage in question has already been dissolved by
a decree of divorce dated 21.9.2020. This court finds force in the
apprehension expressed by the respondent-complainant regarding
possibility of misusing of 19 cheques issued to the petitioners and thus
appreciates the same.
The details of cheques issued by the complainant to the
petitioners are as follows:-
Sr. No. Cheque No. Bank Branch
1. 946615 PNB DMC Ludhiana
2. 946616 PNB DMC Ludhiana
3. 946617 PNB DMC Ludhiana
4. 946618 PNB DMC Ludhiana
5. 946619 PNB DMC Ludhiana
6. 946620 PNB DMC Ludhiana
7. 344252 PNB DMC Ludhiana
8. 344253 PNB DMC Ludhiana
9. 344256 PNB DMC Ludhiana
10. 344257 PNB DMC Ludhiana
11. 344258 PNB DMC Ludhiana
12. 344259 PNB DMC Ludhiana
13. 215921 PNB DMC Ludhiana
14. 215922 PNB DMC Ludhiana
15. 215923 PNB DMC Ludhiana
16. 215924 PNB DMC Ludhiana
17. 215926 PNB DMC Ludhiana
18. 215928 PNB DMC Ludhiana
19. 215929 PNB DMC Ludhiana
Note:- Cheque nos.946613 and 215927 already stand returned to the
complainant.
3 of 7
CRM-M-40666-2020 (O&M) -4-
Resultantly, the bank Manager of the concerned bank is
directed that in case any of the aforementioned cheques is presented by the
petitioners or any other person in future, then the payment of the same
would not be made and complainant/respondent no.2 would be informed
about the same forthwith by the bank authorities about the presentation of
the cheque, if any.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. would
show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C.
is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed
and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and
others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases
675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt
with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt
with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing
4 of 7
CRM-M-40666-2020 (O&M) -5-
of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of
wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and
the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any
basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong
5 of 7
CRM-M-40666-2020 (O&M) -6-
is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the
High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In
other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora
of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have
entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be
merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the
prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
FIR No.270 dated 9.10.2019 under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala, District
6 of 7
CRM-M-40666-2020 (O&M) -7-
Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed
qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise. Needless to say that the
parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise
and their statements recorded before the court below.
Petition stands allowed.
Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be also furnished to the Branch Manager
of the concerned bank for further necessary action.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
14.12.2022
lucky
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
