Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Misc.
No.M-38677 of 2013 ....Date of decision:11.3.2014 Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner v.
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents ...Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Mikhail Kad, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the complainant- respondent No.2....Inderjit Singh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.praying for quashing of FIR No.167 dated 26.6.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 354, 341, 509 and 506 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure-P.2).The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant- Aradhna Suman on the allegation that the petitioner has outraged her modesty.
In the petition it has been mentioned that there was nothing of that sort and all was because of misunderstanding.
Now due to intervention of the respectables and residents of the locality, the matter has Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
No.M-38677 of 2013 [2].been amicably settled between the parties and compromise (Annexure-P.2) to this effect has been entered into.
Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise.
After doing the needful, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has sent his report dated 24.2.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.
Complainant Aradhna Suman has stated that the aforesaid compromise was executed without any pressure, coercion, threat or inducement and it was executed with her free consent and will and after going through the same, she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, 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.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2.
In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser.
Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
No.M-38677 of 2013 [3].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.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 even though they are not compoundable.
Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the law laid down in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab and another (supra).this petition is allowed and FIR No.167 dated 26.6.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 354, 341, 509 and 506 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
March 11, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh