DIMPEY GUJRAL & ORS. vs. U.T.CHANDIGARH & ORS

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.115 OF 2012 DIMPEY GUJRAL W/o.VIVEK GUJRAL & ORS. … PETITIONERS Vs. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATATOR, U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. JUDGMENT 1. In this petition filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short, “ the Code ”), the petitioners have prayed that Criminal Case bearing S.C.No.121 of 2011 pending in the Court of J.S. Sidhu, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh arising out of FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, Page 1 2 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “ the IPC ”), be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at New Delhi. 2. Petitioner 1 is a fashion designer and is a resident of Chandigarh. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughters of petitioner 1. Respondent 2 is the complainant. He is residing in the neighborhood of petitioner 1 and is the son of a retired Judge of the High Court. 3. From the facts disclosed in the petition and as communicated to us by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioners and the complainant are JUDGMENT educated and respectable citizens, who enjoy high social status. Certain unfortunate incidents relating to pet dogs of the petitioners have dragged them to this court. These incidents took ugly turn which resulted in the lodging of FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh by the complainant. Since the offences Page 2 3 involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any

efforts made by learned counsel, parties have seen reason and have entered into a compromise. In view of the compromise, we do not wish to narrate the facts of the case. Counsel for the petitioners has filed an application praying for quashing of the said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court. To this application is annexed a compromise deed, which is duly signed by the complainant, his wife, the petitioners and JUDGMENT respondents 3, 4 and 5. Paragraph 5 of the compromise deed reads thus: “5. That both the parties agree and assure that henceforth, they would maintain healthy relationship with each other while garnering no ill will or malice against each other. Both the parties have resolved to accord quietus to the proceedings relating to the incident. Both the parties reiterate that there remains no acrimony/grudge between them.” Page 3 4 4. The question which now remains to be answered is

compoundable, the FIR could be quashed. In certain decisions of this court in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, this court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences were non-compoundable. A two Judges’ Bench of this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench. The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Cri.) No.8989 JUDGMENT 2010 of along with other connected matters, decided on 24/09/2012 , considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments of this court and concluded as under: 57. 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 Page 4 5

JUDGMENT Page 5 6 5. In light of the above observations of this court in Gian

criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the JUDGMENT final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed. 6. Before parting, we record our appreciation for the efforts made by learned counsel to accord a quietus to the dispute. We also appreciate the conduct of the Page 6 7 parties who have agreed to bury the past and turn a new leaf.

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM) ……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI) NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 6, 2012. JUDGMENT Page 7