CRM No.M-3401 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 CRM No.M-3401 of 2014 Date of Decision:18.09.2014 Varinder Kumar Salaria Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajat Bansal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Parminder Kumari daughter of Sai Dass(respondent No.2) (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against petitioner-accused Varinder Kumar Salaria son of Barkat Ram, vide FIR No.188 dated 13.07.2008(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.
2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report(challan). The petitioner-accused was accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of offences, in question, and the case was listed for evidence of the prosecution by the trial court.
3. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by way of statement dated 29.11.2013(Annexure P-3) of the petitioner and statement dated 29.11.2013(Annexure P-4) of the complainant.
4. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that he (petitioner) has filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act. The parties have amicably settled their disputes and made their respective statements(Annexures P-3 & P-4) in this regard. The factum of compromise is also recorded by the matrimonial court, by means of order dated 29.11.2013(Annexure P-2). They have undertaken to withdraw all civil and criminal cases registered against them by each other. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described here-in-above.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the statements(Annexures P-3 & P-4), by virtue of order dated 22.08.2014 by this Court.
6. In compliance thereof, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, the trial Court has concluded vide its report dated 15.09.2014 that they have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes. The compromise arrived at between them is voluntarily and the same is valid, genuine and without any kind of undue influence or coercion.
7. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by way of statements (Annexures P-3 & P-4). The factum of compromise is also reiterated in the report of the trial Court.
8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now well- settled.
9. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR(Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (para 57) as under:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10. Sequelly, the same view was again(recently) reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 482.
11. Such, thus, being the legal position & material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?
12. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, the learned counsel are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
13. As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act. The parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes and made their respective statements (Annexures P-3 & P-4) in this respect. The factum of compromise is also recorded by the matrimonial court, vide order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P-2). They have undertaken to withdraw all civil and criminal cases registered against them by each other. The complainant has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner-accused, by means of impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the trial Court in its indicated report.
14. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the ratio of the law laid down and the bench-mark set out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh & others' cases(supra), "mutatis mutandis" is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Sequelly, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.188 dated 13.07.2008 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioner-accused is accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against him, on the basis of compromise.
September 18, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE