[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rinkle Marwaha Alias Rimple Marwaha And … vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 April, 2025
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050374
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 21.04.2025
Rinkle Marwaha @ Rimple Marwaha and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. Ankit Kharbanda, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. T.P.S.Walia, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for
Ms. Vardhani Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing
of FIR No.0222 dated 09.10.2017 (P-1), under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘) [Sections
467, 468 & 471 IPC added later on], registered at Police Station Sadar,
District Amritsar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
-1-
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:13:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050374
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
on the basis of compromise dated 31.12.2024 (P-2), entered into between the
parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2.
(2) Allegations are that petitioner(s) hatched criminal conspiracy
and committed criminal breach of trust by falsifying books of accounts and
siphoning off the funds.
(3) Jointly stated that initially, FIR was registered against four
persons; but two of them i.e. Ashok Marwaha & Gagan Marwaha have died
on 07.06.2021 & 29.09.2023, respectively. Also stated that third accused,
namely, Varinder Anand (petitioner No.2) also died on 10.03.2025 i.e. after
recording his statement before learned trial Court and placed on record his
Death Certificate (which is taken on record as Mark ‘X’). Further contends
that matter has been amicably settled between the parties i.e. petitioner(s) as
well as respondent No.2 and reference is made to report dated 20.02.2025,
received from learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar; hence FIR in
question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.
(4) Learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police official
present, is not averse in case the above FIR along with consequential
proceedings are quashed and set aside on the basis of the compromise
entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner(s) as well as respondent No.2.
(5) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
-2-
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:13:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050374
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
(6) This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 15.01.2025,
passed the following order:-
“Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised
between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent
No.2.
(2) Notice of motion.
(3) At this stage, Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned AAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
(4) Ms. Vardhani Gupta, Advocate, causes representation on
behalf of respondent No.2 and acknowledged the factum of
compromise between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as
respondent No.2.
(5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to
learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of
day.
(6) Petitioners shall file their respective affidavit(s) that there
is no other criminal case(s) pending against them and also
give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the
basis of compromise.
(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court
of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before
03.02.2025 for recording their statement(s) with reference to
the compromise, if any, entered into between them.
(8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the
statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim,
if any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date
of hearing containing the following information:-
(i) Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and
not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any
manner?
(ii) Whether the compromise effected between the parties is
genuine and valid?
(iii) Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are
party to the compromise and if not, the
details/particulars of such person(s)?
(iv) Whether any other case is pending against either of the
parties or not, if yes, the details thereof?
(v) Whether any of the persons involved in this
case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender?
(vi) Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict
or not?
-3-
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:13:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050374
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
(9) List before this Court on 03.03.2025 for further consideration.
(10) Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall also get the
instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any
objection?
(11) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer
concerned forthwith for information and strict compliance.”
(7) In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were
recorded and report dated 20.02.2025, received from learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar. For reference, the relevant extract of report
reads as under:-
” After the perusal of statements of parties and I.O it
is submitted as under:-
1) From the statement of parties, it appears that
statements are bonafide without any pressure or
coercion.
2) From the statement of parties, compromise appears to
be genuine and valid.
3) As per statement of I.O, the present case was
registered on the complaint of Hemant Mehra against
four accused persons namely Rinkle Marwaha @
Rimple Marwaha, Varinder Anand, Gagan Marwaha
and Ashok Marwaha. Accused Gagan Marwaha and
Ashok Marwaha had already died. Complainant and
other two accused namely Rinkle Marwaha @ Rimple
Marwaha and Varinder Anand have appeared and
recorded their statements towards compromise.
4) As per statement of IO, no other criminal case is
pending against accused in police station Sadar,
Amritsar.
-4-
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:13:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050374
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
5) As per statement of IO, no accused has been declared
as proclaimed offender in the present case.”
A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter has
been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and
without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is
no objection by either side against each other.
(8) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Gian Singh Versus State of
Punjab”, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may
be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of
such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in-5-
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:13:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050374
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused
to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding.”
(9) In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that
the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not involve public funds.
Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings,
on the basis of compromise, would bring peace and harmony to secure the
ends of justice.
-6-
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:13:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050374
CRM-M-1821-2025 (O&M)
(10) Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along
with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the
petitioner(s).
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
21st April, 2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
Gagan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
-7-
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2025 23:13:17 :::
[ad_2]
Source link