Julee Sharma & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Bhrigu Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 41 dated

16.2.2008 under Sections 326/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Model Town Ludhiana(Annexure P1) and all consequenital proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise dated

31.7.2010 (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1-Julee Sharma and respondent No.2-Vishal Sharma had performed marriage and had filed Crl. Misc. No.M-19840 of 2007 seeking protection qua their life and liberty. However, thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties and FIR No. 41 dated 16.2.2008 was got registered Crl. Misc. No. M-23185 of 2010 2 against the petitioners by respondent No.2 at Police Station Model Town Ludhaina (Anneuxre P1) , whereas, petitioner No.1 got registered FIR No. 29 dated 11.2.2009 against respondent No.2 at Police Station Shimlapuri Ludhiana. Now, with the intervention of relatives and friends, the parties have arrived at a compromise and Julee Sharma and Vishal Sharma have filed a petition that their marriage be declared a nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954. Respondent No.2-Vishal Sharma is present in person and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties.

Respodent No.2 has tendered a short reply by way of an affidavit, as per which, he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. 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 para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:- “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 Crl.

Misc. No. M-23185 of 2010 3 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?