In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009
Date of Decision:February 19, 2009
Gurpreet singh @ Gopi
---Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh,Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab
Mr.Gurvir Kaur, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2
***
SABINA, J.
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi -petitioner has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
‘Cr.P.C.’)for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 6.5.2008 (Anneuxre P-1)under
Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code
registered at Police Station, Qila Lal Singh, Batala District Gurdaspur along
with challan dated 26.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties
were closely related to each other. Now, with the intervention of the
respectables in order to live in peace, they have arrived at a compromise
dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure P-3).Learned counsel for the petitioner has
Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009 -2-
placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported as Surinder Kamboj
and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(1)RCR(Criminal 21
and Talwinder Singh @ Laddi and another vs. State of Punjab and
another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 970.
Complainant as well as the prosecutrix are present in Court in
person along with their counsel. They have admitted the contends of the
affidavit dated 27.11.2008 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). Perusal of affidavits
reveals that parties were closely related to each other. FIR, in question, was
got registered due to some misunderstanding. They have no objection if the
FIR, in question, is quashed.
Incident in the present case is alleged to have taken place on
26.4.2008 whereas the FIR was got registered on 6.5.2008. Petitioner is the
son of sister of complainant-respondent No. 2 at whose instance the FIR, in
question, was got registered. Prosecutrix is the daughter of respondent No.
2.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,
High Court has power under Section 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 JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in paras
23 and 24 has held as under:-
Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009 -3-
“23. 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?
24. 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.”
Normally in cases where there is allegation of rape, courts may
be reluctant to quash the FIR. But in the present case facts are different.
Now the parties want to live in peace due to their close relationship.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009 -4-
Complainant as well as the prosecutrix are no more interest in prosecuting
the prosecuting the FIR, in question.
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful
purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in
question.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 68
dated 6.5.2008 (Anneuxre P-1)under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (added later
on) of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Qila Lal Singh,
Batala District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
February 19, 2009
PARAMJIT