Rajinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17310 P&H

CRM-M-2387-2021 (O & M)                                         -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

135                             CRM-M-2387-2021 (O & M)
                                Date of decision:20.12.2022

Rajinder Kumar                                       ... Petitioner
                               Vs.

State of Punjab and another                          ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present: Ms. Bhavna Kapur, Advocate for the petitioner.

          Mr. P.S. Grewal, DAG, Punjab.

          Mr. Naamparkash Singh Sandhu, Advocate for
          Ms. Aditi Arora, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2.
                       ***

SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)

CRM-48805-2022

For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed.

Date of hearing of the main case is preponed from 09.01.2023

to today and is ordered to be taken on Board.

CRM-49707-2022

Application is allowed as prayed for.

Judgment and decree of divorce dated 14.03.2022 passed

under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are taken on record

as Annexure P-5.

Main Case

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.66 dated 26.03.2018 under Sections 376-B and 377

of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District

Kapurthala, Annexure P-1, alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 19.10.2020, Annexure P-2.

                               1 of 3

 CRM-M-2387-2021 (O & M)                                       -2-

Counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR, Annexure P-1, is

an outcome of a matrimonial dispute. She submits that the petitioner was

married to complainant/respondent No.2 on 23.05.2014 at Jalandhar and

it was a second marriage of the parties. She submits that there is no issue

out of the wedlock, though both of them had children from their first

marriage. She submits that the dispute has been settled by agreement of

compromise, Annexure P-2, entire permanent alimony of Rs.25 lacs has

been paid and marriage has been dissolved by judgment and decree,

Annexure P-5. She has also made a reference to the investigation report

dated 21.03.2019, Annexure P-4, to submit that during investigation, it

has been found that the petitioner is innocent, but no action has been

taken thereon.

Upon instructions from ASI Dalbir Singh, State counsel

submits that challan has not been presented.

Counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 has admitted the

factum of compromise as well as the receipt of entire amount of

permanent alimony.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 10.01.2022, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Trial Court/Area Magistrate for getting their

statements recorded with regard to the compromise and a report was

called for, which has been received and its relevant extract is as under:-

"a) The name of the complainant is Priya Kumar and accused is Rajinder Kumar who has been arrayed in the FIR. Both the parties have appeared i.e. Complainant Priya Kumar in person and accused Rajinder Kumar through video conferencing and made their respective statements in support of the compromise so effected between them.

                               2 of 3

 CRM-M-2387-2021 (O & M)                                      -3-

                               b) As per statement of Investigating

Officer accused has not been declared as proclaimed offender in this case.

c) As per statement of Investigating Officer the case is under Investigation at this stage.

d) The compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence."

From the factual matrix noticed above, it is apparent that the

FIR is a result of a marital discord. The dispute between the parties has

been amicably settled and parties have decided to bury the hatchet and

lead independent and peaceful lives. In view of the above developments,

report of the trial court and the judgments of the Supreme Court in B.S.

Joshi and others Versus State of Haryana and another (2003) 2 RCR

(Criminal) 888 and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur and others Versus State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC

641, this Court has no hesitation in exercising its inherent powers under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quashing the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.66 dated 26.03.2018

under Sections 376-B and 377 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station

City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, Annexure P-1, and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

20.12.2022                                        (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal                                               JUDGE

          Whether Speaking/Reasoned            Yes/No
          Whether Reportable                   Yes/No




                                3 of 3