Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narender Wadhwa @ Raja And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 November, 2022
262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18753-2022
Date of decision: 16.11.2022
NARENDER WADHWA @ RAJA
AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
Present: Mr. Shubham Verma, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
****
VIVEK PURI,J. (ORAL)
Ms. Kinshu Mittal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent No.2 and filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of FIR
No.65 dated 06.11.2018 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, 1860, registered at Police
Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
On 12.05.2022, parties were directed to appear before the Trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate and get their statements recorded with regard to the
compromise arrived at between them.
The trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the
concerned and send its report regarding genuineness and voluntary nature of the
compromise.
1 of 4
In compliance of the order dated 12.05.2022, learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar has recorded the statements of the parties and
submitted the report, the relevant para whereof reads as under:-
"As per record the name of the complainant of the
present case is Garima Abrol and except her there is no
other complainant in this FIR. The names of the accused
are Narender Wadhwa and Devinder Wadhwa. Accused
Devinder Wadhwa has already been died and
proceedings against him has also been abated by the
court on dated 06.08.2021. Except them, there is no
other person nominated by the police as accused. As per
record, accused are neither involved in any other case
nor declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal
case. At present, the case is pending for appearance of
the accused.
Both parties have compromised the matter. There is no
grudge remain between parties. The compromise is
voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion. This court
is of the considered opinion that the compromise has
been effected between the complainant and accused and
same is voluntary, without any pressure or coercion and
is genuine one."
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the challan has been
presented against petitioner No.1 and his father Devender Wadhwa. Devender
Wadhwa has since died and the proceedings against him stand abated in the trial
Court. Furthermore, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were also nominated by respondent
No.3 in her complaint but the challan was never presented against them. Even,
the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning petitioner Nos.2 and 3
as accused has been dismissed by the trial Court. Consequently, he does not press
the petition qua petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the same be dismissed as withdrawn.
It has been further stated that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized
with respondent No.2 on 20.04.2018 but no child has been born from the
wedlock. The matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties
in terms of compromise deed dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-3). The marriage of
2 of 4
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by
mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act in terms of judgment
and decree dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Jalandhar. A
sum of Rs.14,50,000/- has been paid on account of permanent alimony to
respondent No.2. No other case is pending between the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that she has no objection
if FIR is quashed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through
the 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 a settlement,
out of the Court, by way of compromise. The compromise is without any
pressure and a genuine one. In such a situation, continuation of the prosecution
would result in sheer abuse of process of law.
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.
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.
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.65 dated 06.11.2018 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, 1860,
registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed, qua
3 of 4
petitioner No.1 only. However, the petition qua petitioners Nos.2 and 3 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the instant
petition stands allowed qua petitioner No.1.
16.11.2022 (VIVEK PURI)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
