VISHAL SONDHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.31 dated 29.02.2012 registered under Sections 406/498 -A IPC at Police Station City Rupnagar along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and a divorce petition under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been allowed.

(2.) AS per directions issued by this Court on 14.11.2013, the statements of the parties were recorded before the trial Court, wherein, the factum of compromise has been affirmed. After recording the statements of the parties, a report has also been sent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, wherein, it has been mentioned that the decree of divorce has already been awarded by the Court of Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment dated 08.11.2013. A copy, thereof, has also been placed on record. In the statement of the complainant, it has been mentioned that on the basis of compromise, both the parties have parted from each other and divorce under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been awarded. She has also stated that she does not have any objection in quashing of the FIR, in question.

(3.) SINCE the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and a divorce petition under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed on mutual consent; the complainant is satisfied with the compromise and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR; learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the complainant has remarried after divorce and moreover, no purpose would be served, in case, the proceedings are allowed to be continued, the ultimate result would be acquittal as the complainants are not going to support the case of the prosecution. The continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and will not only be the wastage of valuable time of the Court but it would also be not in the interest of both the parties. This Court has power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been designed to achieve that the proceedings may not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case State of Karnataka vs L. Muniswami, 1977 AIR(SC) 1489 . It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that though justice has to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. The relevant observations made therein are reproduced as under : -