Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Khemka Nad Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 July, 2022
CRM-M-22436-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(273) CRM-M-22436-2019
Date of Decision:- 21.07.2022
Vikram Khemka and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab for State-respondent No.1
Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for
Mr. A.K.Ranolia, complainant-respondent No.2.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
Upon instructions received from ASI, Jaswant Singh, State counsel
submits that petitioner No.1 has expired during the pendency of the instant
petition.
In view of this development, petition is rendered infructuous qua
petitioner No.1.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 27.05.2018,
registered for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Women, Police Commissionerate,
Jalandhar, Annexure P-1, along with all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise agreement dated 18.04.2018, Annexure
P-2, arrived at between the parties and the statement dated 22.04.2019,
Annexure P-4, recorded under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
1 of 3
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 (now
deceased) is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law and petitioner
No.3 is the mother-in-law of complainant-respondent No.2. Counsel submits
that marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with complainant-respondent
No.1 on 16.01.2012 at Jalandhar and there is no issue out of the wedlock. He
submits that the parties could not adjust with each other and had been living
separately for years together. Counsel submits that the matrimonial dispute had
been settled by way of compromise, Annexure P-2, marriage had been
dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and the entire permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lacs was paid during the life
time of petitioner No.1.
Upon instructions, State counsel submits that on completion of
investigation, challan was presented against all the three accused-petitioners,
however, charge has not been framed.
Counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 has admitted
the factum of compromise and does not dispute the statement made by counsel
for the petitioners.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Vide order dated 18.12.2019, this Court directed the parties to
appear before the Area Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court for getting
their statements recorded in support of the compromise and a report was called
for regarding the genuineness of the compromise as also as to whether any of
the parties have declared as proclaimed offender. After recording the statement
of the parties, the Trial Court has sent a report, the relevant extract of which is
as under:-
"4. In compliance to the aforesaid order dated
2 of 3
18.12.2019 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is
respectfully submitted that in view of the statements got
recorded by the complainant Poonam and accused Bimla
Khemka and Sunil Khemka, it comes out that accused Vikram
Khemka has expired on 22.12.2019 and this Court is satisfied
that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine
one, which is not the result of any pressure or coercion and the
settlement effected between them is not having any adverse
affect upon the rights of any third party. It is also submitted
that no one has even been declared Proclaimed
Offender/absconder in the present case and challan in the
present case has already been presented before this Court on
03.08.2019."
FIR, Annexure P-1, is essentially an outcome of a matrimonial
dispute between petitioner No.1 (now deceased) and complainant-respondent
No.2. The dispute was resolved and their marriage also stood dissolved before
the death of petitioner No.1.
In view of the above backdrop as well as the report of the Trial
Court and the judgment of Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others Versus
State of Haryana and another (2003) 2 RCR (Criminal) 888 and Ramgopal
and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal)
322, this Court is prima facie of the view that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.38 dated 27.05.2018,
registered for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Women, Police Commissionerate,
Jalandhar, Annexure P-1, along with all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners No.2 and 3.
21.07.2022 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
