Siddharth Sharma And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1832 P&H

CRM-M-38069 of 2021                                          {1}


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

201                                       CRM-M-38069 of 2021
                                          Date of decision:21.03.2022


Siddharth Sharma and others                           ... Petitioners

                           Vs.

State of Punjab and another                           ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:-    Mr. S.K.Rattan, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. A.S.Sandhu, Advocate
             for the complainant/respondent No.2.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

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

seeking quashing of FIR No.294 dated 18.11.2018 registered under Sections

406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sohana, District

S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali) (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 29.07.2021

(Annexure P-2).

Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the

husband, petitioners No.2 is the sister-in-law and petitioners No.3 and 4 are

the in-laws of the complainant-respondent No.2. He submits that marriage

of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the complainant-respondent No.2 on

30.11.2016 and there is no issue out of the wedlock, but due to

1 of 4

CRM-M-38069 of 2021 {2}

temperamental differences, they could not pull along and have been living

separately since August, 2018. He submits that marriage between the parties

has been dissolved, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 20.12.2021

(Annexure P-11) and amount of Rs.7.5 lacs has been paid by way of

permanent alimony. He submits that pursuant to order passed by this Court,

the parties have appeared before the Trial Court and their statements have

been recorded in support of the compromise.

State counsel upon instructions from ASI Sanjay Kumar

submits that investigation has been completed and final report under Section

173 Cr.P.C has been presented, though charge has not been framed.

Counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 has

admitted the factum of compromise as well as statement of counsel for the

petitioners and does not have any objection in case the FIR (Annexure P-1)

is quashed.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 14.09.2021, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Trial Court/Area Magistrate and to get their statements

recorded in support of the compromise and a report was called for from the

concerned Court regarding the genuineness of the compromise and also as

to whether PO proceedings are pending against any of the parties. The

report has been received and its relevant extract is reproduced as under:-

"6. I am satisfied that the compromise arrived at between

the parties is genuine, voluntarily, with their free consent,

without any fear, undue influence or coercion. No PO

2 of 4

CRM-M-38069 of 2021 {3}

proceedings are pending against any of the party. Complainant

has stated in her statement before the undersigned that she has

compromised the matter with all the accused persons involved

in the present case and she has no objection if the present FIR

be quashed against all the accused."

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

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) is an outcome of martial discord between

the parties, which has been settled, marriage has been dissolved by virtue of

3 of 4

CRM-M-38069 of 2021 {4}

judgment and decree (Annexure P-11) and the parties have decided to bury

their differences and lead their separate independent lives. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would not

serve any purpose and deserve to be set aside.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.294 dated

18.11.2018 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code,

1860 at Police Station Sohana, District S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali)

(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are

quashed qua the petitioners.

                                               (SUVIR SEHGAL)
March 21, 2022                                     JUDGE
savita

Whether Speaking/Reasoned                                      Yes
Whether Reportable                                             Yes




                                4 of 4