Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pavittar Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 March, 2022
CRM No.9322 of 2022 in/and
CRM-M-17470 of 2021 (O&M) {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.9322 of 2022 in/and
117 CRM-M-17470 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of decision:21.03.2022
Pavittar Kaur and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurpreet Jiya, Advocate for
Mr. Nischal Manchanda, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
CRM No.9322 of 2022
Prayer in the application is for preponement of hearing of the
main case.
Noticing the prayer made in the application, date of hearing of
the main case is advanced to today and it is ordered to be taken up on
Board.
Application is allowed.
CRM No.9320 of 2022
For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed.
Judgment dated 18.02.2022 passed in petition instituted under
Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is taken on record as Annexure
P-9.
1 of 4
CRM No.9322 of 2022 in/and
CRM-M-17470 of 2021 (O&M) {2}
CRM-M-17470 of 2021
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking quashing of FIR No.0040 dated 16.08.2016 registered under
Sections 498-A, 406, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station
Women, District Amritsar City (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 01.04.2021
(Annexure P-2).
Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.1 and 2
are the in-laws and petitioner No.3 is the husband of the complainant-
respondent No.2. He submits that marriage of petitioner no.3 was
solemnized with the complainant-respondent No.2 on 15.03.2009 and one
child was born out of the wedlock, but due to temperamental differences,
they could not adjust with each other and have been living separately since
June, 2016. He submits that dispute between the parties has been settled by
virtue of compromise (Annexure P-2) and in terms thereof, the marriage has
been dissolved by mutual consent, vide judgment dated 18.02.2022
(Annexure P-9). He has also referred to the Clause 2 of the terms of the
compromise deed to submit that settlement has also been arrived regarding
custody and welfare of the minor child.
Short reply by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Crime against Women and Children, Amritsar City has been filed on
behalf of State-respondent No.1, which is taken on record.
Upon instructions from ASI Gurmeet Singh, State counsel
submits that investigation has been concluded, challan has been presented,
2 of 4
CRM No.9322 of 2022 in/and
CRM-M-17470 of 2021 (O&M) {3}
charge has been framed under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, though the
prosecution evidence is yet to start.
Counsel for the complainant has admitted the factum of
compromise as well as statement made by counsel for the petitioners and he
does not have any objection in case FIR is quashed.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Vide order dated 28.04.2021, this Court directed the parties to
appear before the Trial Court for recording of their statements and a report
was called for from the Court concerned as to whether the compromise is
voluntarily and also as to whether any of the parties has been declared as
P.O. Report has been received and its relevant extract is reproduced as
under:-
"From the statements, it appears that complainant and
accused/petitioner have compromised the matter without any
pressure, duress, inducement and threat of any kind from any
corner voluntarily with their free will."
Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State of
Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and
another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 has held that the High Court has
wide power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR or complaint having
predominantly civil flavour or involving matrimonial offences and family
disputes wherein the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir
alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Versus State of
3 of 4
CRM No.9322 of 2022 in/and
CRM-M-17470 of 2021 (O&M) {4}
Gujrat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641 has summarized the broad principles
on the basis of the precedents and has held that the inherent power of the
High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude, which has to be exercised to
secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any
Court. In Ramgopal and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, Supreme Court has held that limited
jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320
Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High
Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
FIR (Annexure P-1) has emanated from a martial dispute
between the parties, which has been settled, marriage has been dissolved by
mutual consent by virtue of judgment and decree (Annexure P-9) and the
parties have decided to bury the hatchet and lead their separate independent
lives. Therefore, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal
proceedings would not serve any purpose, rather setting aside of the same
would enable the parties to lead a peaceful life.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0040 dated
16.08.2016 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 at Police Station Women, District Amritsar City
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are
quashed qua the petitioners.
March 21, 2022 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
savita JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
4 of 4
