Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjit Singh Dhillon And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 14 November, 2022
CRM-M-8388-2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-8388-2020
Date of Decision: November 14, 2022
Gurjit Singh Dhillon and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Veneet Thakur, Advocate,
for Mr. B.S. Seemar, Advocate,
for respondent no.2.
Vivek Puri, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court by way
of instant petition under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the
FIR No. 5, dated 08.04.2012, under Sections 498-A, 406 of
the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Women
Cell, Bathinda, District Bathinda and subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom including the impugned order dated
02.09.2013 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bathinda, vide which the petitioners have been
declared as proclaimed offenders, on the basis of the
compromise dated 06.12.2019 (Annexure P-4).
On 04.08.2021, the parties were directed to appear
1 of 6
before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get recorded
their statements regarding compromise and it was further
directed that after recording their statements, the learned trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall send a report with regard to the
validity or otherwise of the compromise so effected between
the parties.
In compliance of the order dated 04.08.2021, the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda has recorded
the statements of the parties and submitted the report, the
relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"1. It is respectfully submitted that earlier
challan was presented. Accused namely Gurjit
Singh Dhillon, Amarjit Kaur Dhillon and Gurmail
Singh were declared proclaimed offender and
evidence was recorded under Section 299 of
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the said case bearing no. CHI
520-2015 was ordered to be consigned to record
room vide order dated 23.11.2015. As per
record, there is one complainant namely
Amandeep Kaur and there are total three
accused namely Gurjit Singh Dhillon, Amarjit
Kaur Dhillon and Gurmail Singh Dhillon in the
present FIR. Balbir Singh, Special attorney of
accused persons namely Gurjit Singh Dhillon,
Amarjit Kaur Dhillon and Gurmail Singh Dhillon
appeared before the court and recorded his
statement in support of the compromise so
effected between the complainant and accused.
The accused themseleves did not appear in
person rather their special attorney appeared
before this court today i.e. 17.08.2021.
2 of 6
2. It is submitted that all accused have been
declared proclaimed offender in present case.
3. The case bearing no. CHI 520 of 2015 has
already consigned to the record room after
evidence under section 299 Cr.P.C. On
23.11.2015 as accused persons namely Gurjit
Singh Dhillon, Amarjit Kaur Dhillon and Gurmail
Singh were declared proclaimed offender.
4. In view of statements given by the parties,
this Court is of the considered opinion that
compromise effected between parties is genuine
and it is effected voluntarily, without any
pressure, coercion or undue influence from any
quarter."
The report is indicative of the fact that the
petitioners have been declared as Proclaimed Offenders and
their statements have been recorded through their attorney
i.e. Balbir Singh. The petitioners have been declared as
proclaimed offenders in terms of the order dated 02.09.2013
(Annexure P/2) and the quashing thereof has also been
sought in the present proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the
marriage of petitioner no.1 was solemnized with the
respondent no.2 on 21.02.2010, but no child has been born
from the wedlock. Even Kulvir Kaur @ Veero, the sister of the
petitioner no.1 was arraigned as an accused, but the FIR qua
her has been quashed in terms of the order dated 27.03.2015
passed in CRM-M-40662-2012. The matrimonial dispute has
been amicably settled between the parties in terms of the
3 of 6
compromise (Annexure P-4). The petitioner no.1 has paid a
sum of Rs. 13 lakhs to the respondent no.2 on account of
permanent alimony. The marriage of the petitioner no.1 and
the respondent no.2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce
by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act in terms of the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2020
passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Hoshiarpur. No other case is pending between the parties. The
petitioners have been declared as proclaimed offenders in
terms of the order dated 02.09.2013. It has been further
submitted that during the relevant period, the petitioners were
residing abroad.
Although, the petitioners have been declared as
proclaimed offenders, but it cannot be said that the power to
quash the prosecution is limited only to the matrimonial
dispute alone and the same cannot be invoked to set aside the
order declaring the petitioners to be proclaimed offenders, in
the event, the same is required to be exercised to achieve ends
of justice and prevent the abuse of process of law. It may be
true that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings where
the offence is heinous in nature, but in the event, the matter
is overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly of civil nature and
particularly arising out of matrimonial dispute, it shall be
appropriate to quash the FIR and the entire subsequent
4 of 6
proceedings to put a quietus to the matter. The controversy in
the instant case does not indicate that the same involves
heinous or serious offences and furthermore, the matrimonial
dispute has been sought to be amicably settled. Consequently,
a deserving case is made out where the court should exercise
the power to secure the ends of justice. With the amicable
settlement effected between the parties, the chances of
conviction of the petitioners are remote and minimal. Although
the petitioners have been declared as proclaimed offenders
but keeping in view the fact that an amicable settlement has
been effected, the entire subsequent proceedings which have
arisen out of matrimonial dispute should come to an end by
exercising inherent power of this Court in order to secure the
ends of justice. In such a situation, the continuation of
prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law.
The compromise has been voluntarily effected
between the parties and they are stated to be residing
separately and peacefully.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent
no.2 are ad idem that the matrimonial dispute has been
amicably settled between the parties. The marriage of the
petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has been dissolved by
a decree of divorce by mutual consent and no other case is
pending between the parties. Even the entire claim of the
respondent no.2 for permanent alimony has been settled.
5 of 6
For the aforesaid view, this Court finds support
from Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 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.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case noted above, coupled with the reasons
aforementioned and to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 5,
dated 08.04.2012, under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian
Penal Code, registered at Police Station Women Cell,
Bathinda, District Bathinda and subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom including the order dated 02.09.2013
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bathinda vide which the petitioners have been declared as
proclaimed offenders, are ordered to be quashed, however,
qua the petitioners only.
Resultantly, with the above-said observations made,
the instant petition stands allowed.
November 14, 2022 [Vivek Puri]
vkd Judge
Whether reasonable / speaking : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
