Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Rai @ Vicky vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 September, 2022
CRM-M-9329-2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9329-2020
Date of Decision: 21.09.2022
VIKRAM RAI @ VICKY ... PETITIONER
VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
Present : Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Aman Rehal, Advocate for
Mr. Kanhiya Soni, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*****
VIVEK PURI, J.(ORAL)
Through instant petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR
No. 102 dated 05.11.2019 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC registered at Women
Police Station, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise.
On 02.03.2020, the parties were directed to get their statements
recorded before the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court.
In compliance of the order dated 02.03.2020, the statements of the
parties have been recorded and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar,
has sent the report and the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"SI Anju Bala No.18/JPCT posted at PS Women
Cell, Jalandhar as per record the name of the
complainant of the present case is Harmesh Lal and
the name of the victim is Neeru and except them there
is no other complainant in this FIR. The name of the
accused person is Vikram Rai. Except him, there is no
other persons nominated by the police as accused. As
per record, accused is neither involved in any other
case in Jalandhar nor declared proclaimed offender in
1 of 3
any other criminal case in Jalandhar.
The parties were present with their counsel and
got recorded their statements in respect to the
compromise taken place between them. All the parties
are duly identified by their counsels.
As per record the name of the complainant of
the present case is Harmesh Lal and the name of the
victim is Neeru and except them there is no other
complainant in this FIR. The name of the accused
person is Vikram Rai. Except him, there is no other
persons nominated by the police as accused. As per
record, accused is neither involved in any other case in
Jalandhar nor declared proclaimed offender in any
other criminal case in Jalandhar. At present, the case
is pending for consideration on charge.
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 petitioner contends that in the application,
respondent No.2 had levelled allegations against the petitioner and his other
relatives. However, the FIR has been registered only against the petitioner. The
marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 20.06.2019,
but no child has been born from the wedlock. The matrimonial dispute has been
amicably settled between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent
No.2 has been 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
03.08.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Jalandhar. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
has been paid to respondent No.2 on account of permanent alimony. Respondent
No.2 has also withdrawn the application under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act and no other case is pending between the parties.
2 of 3
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not disputed the aforesaid
factual aspect(s) and further stated that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
After hearing 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. 102 dated 05.11.2019 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC registered at
Women Police Station, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise are ordered to be quashed, however,
qua the petitioner only.
Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the instant
petition stands allowed.
21.09.2022 (VIVEK PURI)
smriti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
