Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2009CRM-M/10238/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed an FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC regarding a matrimonial dispute. The court relied on a compromise between parties, a subsequent decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the absence of any objection from the wife or the State, citing the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.27 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CRM No. M-10238 of 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CRM No. M-10238 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.5.2009

Vijay Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. NG Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶12

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.27 dated 1.3.2008, under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Muktsar (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties submit that a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been granted and all the terms of compromise are incorporated therein.

¶14

Complainant/respondent No.2 is present in Court. She is duly identified by her counsel. She has filed an affidavit, which is taken on record as Mark 'A' admitting therein the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. She states that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶15

CRM No. M-10238 of 2009 2

¶16

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the fact that the present FIR is regarding a matrimonial dispute, the State would not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR.

¶17

The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings, which would be a futile exercise.

¶18

In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.

¶19

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶20

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶21

May 05, 2009 'rajpal'

Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirdosh Kumar Vs Pacific Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Jatinder Singh Sohi Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ravi Arora Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab