Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Kant Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 25 March, 2022
CRM-M-47472-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-47472
47472-2021
Date of Decision: March 25, 2022
Kamal Kant Sharma
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
***
Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Rishab Garg, Advocate,
for respondent no.2.
(The case has been taken up through video
conferencing on account of Covid-19
Pandemic).
-.-
Vivek Puri,
Puri, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court
by way of instant petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
('Cr.P.C.') invoking its inherent jurisdiction
for quashing of F.I.R. No. 87 dated 22.05.2010,
registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Haibowal,
1 of 8
District Ludhiana City, as well as, judgment
dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide which the
petitioner has been convicted and sentenced, on
the basis of statement/compromise dated
19.08.2021 (Annexure P-3) along with all
consequential proceedings.
Precisely, the case has been registered
on the basis of statement of the respondent
no.2/complainant alleging that her marriage was
solemnized with the petitioner on 29.04.2006.
There are allegations to the effect that the
petitioner along with co-accused has been raising
demand of car or Rs. 5 lakhs and she was mal-
treated on that score. Consequently, the
aforesaid FIR was registered.
At the first instance, the petitioner
along with his father - Sulekh Raj Sharma and
mother - Smt. Sudarshna Sharma were prosecuted
and the petitioner was convicted under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default
whereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a
period of two months. However, the co-accused,
2 of 8
namely, Sulekh Raj Sharma and Sudarshna Sharma
were acquitted of the charges framed against
them.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner
has preferred a criminal appeal which is now
pending in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
On 06.12.2021, the parties were directed
to appear before the learned Appellate Court for
recording their statements with regard to
compromise/settlement and it was further directed
that after recording their statements, the
learned Appellate Court shall send the following
information:-
"1. Number of persons arrayed as accused
in FIR;
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed
offender;
3. Whether the compromise is genuine,
voluntary and without any coercion
or undue influence;
4. Whether the accused persons are
involved in any other case or not;
5. The Court is also directed to record
the statement of the Investigating
Officer as to how many
victims/complainants are there in
the FIR."
3 of 8
In compliance of the order dated
06.12.2021, both the parties have appeared before
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana and got their statements recorded. The
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Ludhaina after recording the statements of the
parties, has sent the report dated 24.02.2022 and
the relevant portion thereof is reproduced herein
below:-
"(1) Present FIR was registered against
three persons i.e. appellant Kamal
Kant Sharma, Sulekh Raj Sharma and
Sudarshan Sharma and learned trial
Court convicted only Kamal Kant Sharma
and acquitted accused Sulekh Raj
Sharma and Sudarshan Sharma vide
judgment and order dated 20.07.2016.
(2) As per the statement of the
parties and IO, no person is
proclaimed offender in the present
case;
(3) So, from the perusal of statement
of complainant Akshara and appellant
Kamal Kant Sharma, both the parties
voluntarily entered into a genuine
compromise without any kind of
coercion or undue influence.
(4) As per statement of parties,
appellant or his parents are not
involved in any other case.
4 of 8
(5) Statement of Investigating Officer
was recorded in this case and he
stated that present case was got
registered on the statement of
complainant Akshara and she is the
only complainant and victim of the
present case."
After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and going through record of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it
is a fit case for exercising the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice
because the parties have arrived at an out of the
Court settlement by way of compromise (Annexure
P-3). The compromise is genuine one and has been
voluntarily executed by the parties without any
pressure or undue influence.
For the aforesaid view, this Court finds
support from Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State
of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)
(Criminal)
1052,
1052 upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303
and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab
and another 2014(6)SCC 466.
In the decision rendered in Sube Singh
and
and another Vs. State of Haryana a nd another,
5 of 8
2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, the Division
Bench of this Court has laid down as following:-
"17. The magnitude of inherent
jurisdiction exercisable by the High
Court under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code with a view to
prevent the abuse of law or to
secure the ends of justice, however,
is wide enough to include its power
to quash the proceedings in relation
to not only the non-compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar
under Section 320 Criminal Procedure
Code but such a power, in our
considered view, is exercisable at
any stage save that there is no
express bar and invoking of such
power is fully justified on facts
and circumstances of the case."
Furthermore, in the recent decision
rendered in Ramgopal and another Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, it has
been held by the Supreme Court that non
compoundable criminal cases of pre-dominantly
private nature can be quashed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. even if compromise is reached after
conviction.
The matrimonial dispute has been amicably
settled between the parties. The marriage of the
petitioner and the respondent no.2 has been
6 of 8
dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act in terms of the judgment and decree dated
02.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana. It has
been further stated that the respondent no.2 has
received a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs on account of
permanent alimony.
Considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case noted above, coupled
with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the
ends of justice, F.I.R. No. 87 dated 22.05.2010,
registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Haibowal,
District Ludhiana City along with all
consequential proceedings, on the basis of
statement/compromise dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure
P-3) effected between the parties, is ordered to
be quashed, as well as, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2016
(Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana are set aside. The
petitioner is acquitted and fine, if any,
deposited be refunded. Furthermore, the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the judgment
7 of 8
of conviction and order of sentence dated
20.07.2016 would be rendered infructuous and
shall be so declared by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge where the appeal is pending.
Resultantly, with the above-said
observations made, the instant petition stands
allowed.
March 25,
25, 2022 (VIVEK PURI)
PURI)
vkd JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
