The Court quashed an FIR registered under IPC sections including 498-A and 324 on the basis of a valid compromise between the husband and wife, relying on a prior Full Bench decision.
The FIR No.239 dated 4.5.2008 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-29574 of 2009 - 1 –
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29574 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: 17.11.2009 ****
Ritesh Singal and others
VS.
State of Haryana and another
. . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate with Mr.Rose Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the FIR No.239 dated 4.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 406 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for shot ‘IPC’) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise.
The aforesaid FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2. Later on, due to the intervention of the respectables and elders in the family, a compromise has been effected between the parties on 6.10.2009, which is placed on record as Annexure P-2.
Notice was issued. Pursuant thereto, reply has been filed by State of Haryana.
CRM-M-29574 of 2009 - 2 –
Both, Ritesh (petitioner No.1) and Ruchika (respondent No.2/complainat) are present in the Court and have been identified by their Advocates Mr.N.S. Shekhawat and Mr.Manoj Tanwar, respectively.
I have asked Ruchika (respondent No.2/complainant) about the compromise to which she has stated that compromise (Annexure P-2) has been effected between the parties and is in existence till today without any change. Ruchika (respondent No.2/complainant) has also stated that now she is living with her husband (Ritesh-petitioner No.1) in her matrimonial home.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that offence under Section 323 is compoundable but Sections 324, 406 & 498-A IPC are non-compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of Full bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, to contend that if the parties have decided to bury the hatched then even a non-compoundable offences can also be compounded.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case where dispute between the husband and the wife is over, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the present FIR. Therefore, the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
NOVEMBER 17, 2009 Vivek
2 issues framed by the court
Whether quashing of FIR is justified upon a valid compromise in a domestic dispute despite some charges being non-compoundable.
Whether a Full Bench of this Court's ruling allows compounding of non-compoundable offences in the context of a settled domestic dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶25
Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ritesh Singal and others
State of Haryana
Ruchika
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
