Navroz Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2328

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Navroz Singh & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M NO. 627 of 2023
Decided On : 20-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Angad Advocate for Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2:Mr Varinder Singh, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 406, 354, 354A, 506, 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4, 4A - Quashing of FIR based on compromise - Parties entered into a genuine compromise to resolve matrimonial disputes amicably and sought quashing of the FIR - Court emphasized that non-heinous offences can be quashed if allegations are predominantly of a private nature and do not involve public interest - Judicial discretion is warranted to secure ends of justice. (Paras 2, 12, 5)

(B) Inherent powers of the High Court - The exercise of power under Section 482 must focus on preventing the abuse of process and ensuring justice - Sentencing should not solely focus on punishment but may consider societal implications of legal interpretations where compromise is workable and does not undermine justice. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR for offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on a compromise after the marital dispute. The compromise was considered genuine by the learned magistrate and confirmed by both parties.

Findings of Court:
Continuation of proceedings is unwarranted due to the private nature of the disputes and the need to conserve judicial resources without causing any injustice.

Issues: Whether the FIR can be quashed due to a mutual compromise between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-heinous offences can be annulled if the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and the nature of the offences does not involve public interest or moral turpitude.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for the petition and compromise. (Para 1)
2. court's analysis of the compromise and lack of objection. (Para 2 , 3)
3. judicial precedence on quashing non-compoundable offences. (Para 4)
4. conclusion on the ineffectiveness of continuing the proceedings. (Para 5)
5. quashing of fir based on the resolution between parties. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

This petition is filed under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0194, dated 10.07.2021, under Sections 4 98A, 406, 354, 354A, 506 and 34 of IPC 1860 and under Sections 3 , 4 and 4A of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi District Kapurthala, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise/ affidavit dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2. In terms of order dated 09.01.2023 of this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sultanpur Lodhi has submitted his report dated 16.01.2023. The relevant extracts of the report are as below :-

"(I)The compromise between the parties appears to be genuine. Respondent Navneet Kaur got married with petitioner no.1 Navroz Singn on 16.03.2021. There is no issue from the marriage. After dispute in the married life, the present FIR was registered. But now a written compromise is entered between the parties and both want to end the matrimonial dispute. As per compromise, both the parties will withdraw their litigation in different courts. Also a petition under section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act is filed to seek mutual divorce. The copy of written compromise is placed on record. Father of Navneet Kaur is also present and he also confirms that compromise is executed by his daughter voluntarily. Therefore the compromise is appears to be genuine and voluntarily entered.

(II) As per report under section 173 Cr.P.C., there are two accused namely Navroz Singh son of Palwinder Singh and Palwinder Singh Son of Gian Singh.

(III) There is one victim/complainant and she has entered into compromise. There are two accused and both have entered into compromise. Victim as well both accused are parties to the quashment petition.

(IV) Challan/report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented on 10.02.2022 and at present case/trial is fixed for consideration on charge.

(V) Yes, all the accused are on bail and appearing before the trial court.

(VI) There are other criminal cases against both the accused. As per Statement of accused Palvinder Singh he has three more FIRs registered against him. Their detail and status is as follows:-

a) FIR bearing no.25 dated 01.02.2020 P.S. Sultanpur Lodhi, under section 379,427,34,452,307 and 201 IPC and same is pending trial. As per statement of Palwinder Singh in said FIR also compromise is effected and quashment is pending before Hon'ble High Court vide CRM-M-56968 of 2022.

b) FIR bearing no.46 dated 15.03.2019, w/s 323,324,341, 148, 149 IPC PS Sultanpur Lodhi and same is pending trial. As per statement of Palwinder Singh in said FIR also compromise is effected and quashment is pending before Hon'ble Court vide CRM-M-59136 of 2022.

c) FIR bearing no.86 dated 20.06.2007, under section 302, 34 IPC, P.S. Sultanpur Lodhi. In said FIR accused is convicted and appeal is pending before Hon'ble Punjab and Harayna High Court vide CRA-S-1755- SB-2008.

(VII) One other FIR no.25 dated 01.02.2020, under section 379,427,34,452,307 and 201 IPC, P.S. Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala is registered and pending trial. As per statement of Navroz Singh compromise is effected in said FIR and quashment is pending before Hon'ble High Court vide CRM-M-56968 of 2022.

Compromise between parties appears to be genuine as parties wants to amicably end their matrimonial dispute. They have file for mutual divorce under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act."

3. Learned State counsel on instruction from Investigating Officer and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have no objection if FIR and consequent proceedings in view of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document