Sachin Alias Sachin Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 11999 P&H

CRM-M-15153-2021                                                   -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

282                                CRM-M-15153-2021
                                   Date of decision:22.09.2022

Sachin @ Sachin Kumar                                   ... Petitioner
                                  Vs.

State of Punjab and another                             ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:     Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

             Mr. A.S. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                          ***

SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)

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

quashing of FIR No.72 dated 27.04.2017 under Sections 354-A and 506

of IPC, 1860, and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000,

registered at Police Station Division No.3, District Police

Commissionerate Jalandhar, Annexure P-1, alongwith all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated

23.03.2021, Annexure P-2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR, Annexure P-1, has

been lodged by complainant/respondent No.2 on the allegation that her

brother-in-law, Sachin (present petitioner), who had strained relations

with complainant's sister has been sending her objectionable messages

and pornographic material. It has been alleged that the petitioner wanted

to marry her. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR, are

false as there was a matrimonial dispute between Nisha @ Jasmin-

1 of 3

petitioner's sister and accused-Sachin. He submits that the dispute

between the parties has been settled by compromise, Annexure P-2, and

the parties have recorded their statements in support of the compromise.

Upon instructions from ASI Mukhtiar Singh, State counsel

submits that on conclusion of investigation, challan has been presented,

charge has been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined.

Counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has admitted the

factum of compromise and supports the prayer made in the petition.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 08.09.2021, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Trial Court for recording their statements and a report

was called for regarding the genuineness of the compromise and also

whether the P.O. Proceedings are pending against any of the parties.

Report has been received and its relevant extract is reproduced

as under:-

"The petitioner/accused Sachin @ Sachin Kumar accompanied with his counsel Shri Rohit Dogra, suffered statement that he has compromised the matter with respondent no.2/complainant Bharti, present in the court, as per written compromise dated 23.03.2021 Annexure-1 (original thereof has already submitted before the Hon' ble High Court), with the intervention of respectable (s), voluntarily, without any threat, coercion or pressure from any corner.

                                       After hearing and admitting the
                             above-mentioned           statement        of
                             petitioner/accused,     the      complainant/

respondent No.2 namely, Bharti daughter of late Shri Parveen Kumar, accompanied with her counsel Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate got recorded her similar statement. She has no objection, if above-said FIR no.72 dated 27.04.2017 is quashed by the Hon'ble High Court.

ln view of the statement of

2 of 3

Investigation officer ASI Ram Singh, No.627 no PO proceedings are pending against any of the party.

From the statements made by both the parties it is evident that they have compromised the matter voluntarily, without any threat, coercion or pressure from any corner."

It is evident from the above that FIR, Annexure P-1, is an

outcome of a dispute, which is entirely personal in nature and seems to

have been lodged out of vengeance against the accused-petitioner as his

relationship with the petitioner's sister was strained. Considering the fact

that the matter has been amicably settled and the parties have decided to

bury the hatchet, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the criminal

proceedings. In view of the above facts, report of the trial court and

judgments of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Versus State of

Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai

Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Versus State of Gujarat and

another (2017) 9 SCC 641, criminal proceedings are liable to be set

aside.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.72 dated 27.04.2017

under Sections 354-A and 506 of IPC, 1860, and Section 67 of

Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Division

No.3, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, Annexure P-1, and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the

petitioner.

22.09.2022                                         (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal                                                JUDGE
          Whether Speaking/Reasoned             Yes/No
          Whether Reportable                    Yes/No




                                 3 of 3