Jatinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 128 dated 11.6.1998 under Sections 406, 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short) registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P3).

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by an ex-parte decree of divorce in favour of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 has got remarried. The other accused in this case have since been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 4.8.2005. Petitioner was residing in Germany at the time of the registration of the FIR and has visited India now in the year 2010.

Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has also admitted the contents of affidavit (Annexure P4),as per which, she has received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the petitioner and does not want to pursue the cases against the petitioner. It is also stated in the affidavit that she has received back all her istridhan, dowry articles etc. Respondent No. 2 has further submitted that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed as she has got remarried after getting an ex-parte decree of divorce in her favour.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Cri) 1052, High Court has power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:

In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi''s case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 128 dated 11.6.1998 under Sections 406, 498A, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.