Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 365 (PNJ)

Navin Walia v. State Of Punjab

2006-02-07

NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. Through this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 95 dated 17.5.2005 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Patran, district Patiala and the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is wife of Navin Walia, petitioner No. 1. Their marriage was solemnized on 25.1.2000. They started living together. Out of this wedlock, a male child was born. After the marriage some differences cropped up between husband and wife. 3. On 17.5.2005 petitioner No. 2, on account of some temperamental differences, got FIR No. 95 dated 17.5.2005 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Patran, district Patiala against her husband-petitioner No. 1. Now with the intervention of the relatives, the matter has been compromised between them. Affidavit in the shape of a compromise (Annexure P-2) has been placed on record by complainant-petitioner No. 2, wherein she has stated that the matter has been compromised with her husband-petitioner No. 1; she does not want to pursue the matter further, and therefore, FIR in question may be quashed. 4. Petitioner No. 2 Minakshi Walia appeared in Court and made a statement that on her statement made to the police, FIR in question was registered against her husband, petitioner No. 1 Navin Walia. It is further stated that now the matter has been compromised between them; she along with her child is living happily in the matrimonial home with her husband and she does not want to pursue the above said FIR and the same may be quashed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and pursued the paper- book. 6. In support of their prayer to quash the First Information Report on the basis of affidavit in the shape of compromise (Annexure P-2), learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(1) Apex Criminal 197 : 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 888 : AIR 2003 SC 1386. In para 14 of the said judgment, the Honble Apex Court has observed as under :- "14. In para 14 of the said judgment, the Honble Apex Court has observed as under :- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harras or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code". 7. On the basis of aforementioned undisputed facts of the instant case, there is no likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offences mentioned in the First Information Report when the case would be put on trial. The wife is not likely to support the imputation made against her husband petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 wife in her statement made in Court today has stated that the FIR in question was lodged due to some temperamental differences and the same may be quashed as also the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, to enable her to live happily in the matrimonial home. In such an eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. In the cases, where the parties have settled their litigation and want to terminate the matrimonial dispute amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law, the Court must exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings as well as the First Information Report. In such cases, Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In such cases, Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light of the observations of the Honble Apex Court in B.S. Joshis case (supra), I am of the view that it would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law to continue with the proceedings in respect of FIR No. 95 dated 17.5.2005 registered under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Patran, district Patiala. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR No. 95 dated 17.5.2005 registered under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, as also the subsequent proceedings taken thereon are quashed. The statement got recorded by complainant-petitioner No. 2 in Court today, shall form a part of this order.