Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Sharma vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Another on 24 November, 2023
REENA
2023:PHHC: 150454
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-8036-2023
Date of decision:- 24.11.2023
Vikas Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: | Mr. Karanvir Nanda, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. P.S. Paul, Addl. P.P. for U.T. Chandigarh
Mr. Rajesh Sehrawat, Advocate
for respondent No. 2
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 0120 dated 04.04.2017 registered under
Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 at
Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 18.05.2017
(Annexure P-2 ).
2. The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-Pardeep
Dhingra on the allegations that the accused-petitioner has matrimonial dispute with
his daughter-Ruby Sharma, regarding which they had filed an FIR at Rajouri
Garden Police Station, Delhi. According to the compromise, his passport is with
Ruby Sharma so that the petitioner cannot leave the country. The name of the
petitioner was put circulated to all the airports in India vide a look out circular
(L.O.C.). However, he made a new passport by giving false declaration and tried
to leave the country defying Court orders. He was stopped from taking flight at
2023.11.29 10:42
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
REENA
2023.11.29
2023: PHHC:150454
Amritsar Airport by the authorities due to the L.O.C. Now with the intervention of
respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the
parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Manjit Kaur @
Randeep Sidhu@ Sonika Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others, 2022(3)
RCR(CrL) 734, CRM-M-327714 of 2018 titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. State of
Punjab decided on 20.01.2020 and Vinod @ Boda and others vs. State of
Haryana and another, 2017(1) RCR(Cri.) 571 to contend that FIR under Section
12 of the Passport Act, 1967 can be quashed on the basis of compromise. Since the
offence under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 does not appears to be grave
and heinous, the dispute was prima facie between the parties in their individual and
private capacity. The chances of the petitioner being convicted are very bleak and
subjecting the petitioner to suffer trial would result in unnecessary harassment to
the petitioner.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a
compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial court/Illaqa Magistrate
for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. In pursuance
of the direction, a report dated 25.05.2023 has been received from Judicial
Magistrate 1* Class, Chandigarh stating that the compromise arrived at between the
parties is without any pressure or coercion from any anyone and the same is a
genuine one.
5. Learned Additional PP for U.T. Chandigarh on instructions from the
Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2
admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed
settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10:42
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
REENA
2023:PHHC:150454
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
record with their able assistance.
7. The parties have effected a compromise and resolved their dispute
amicably. A compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties
to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the
nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have
amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an
exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. A two Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakunta Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya
(Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63, speaking through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer,
has held as under:-
"4. ....The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties,
despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship
or reunion.....
8. Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been
amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466
and Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC
834 and Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3)
RCR (Crl.) 1052, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 0120 dated 04.04.2017
registered under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Passport
Act, 1967 at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua petitioner.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
November 24, 2023 JUDGE
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2023.11.29 10:42
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
