Quashed

Baljit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2009CRM-M/4564/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR and adjoining proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise between the estranged spouses, supported by a consent decree dissolving the marriage, citing relevant precedents on the utility of settlement in such cases.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 98 dated 10.3.2001 and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Baljit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-4564 of 2009

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-4564 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: 2.4.2009

¶6

Baljit Singh Maan and Others

¶7

…Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and Another

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶14

Mr. P.B.S.Goraya, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 98 dated 10.3.2001 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 & 109 IPC.

¶17

The quashing of FIR has been sought on basis of compromise.

¶18

Respondent No.2-Manjit Kaur alias Bobby had lodged FIR which has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P1. FIR was lodged against the husband and his relations. It was stated in the

¶19

Criminal Misc. No. M-4564 of 2009

¶20

¶21

FIR that the marriage of respondent No.2-complainant Manjit Kaur alias Bobby was solemnized with Baljit Singh, petitioner No.1, on 13.10.1991. She was harassed, maltreated on account of dowry, cruelty was inflicted upon her and Baljit Singh had also performed re-marriage, and committed the offence of bigamy.

¶22

Respondent No.2-complainant Manjit Kaur alias Bobby is present in the Court.

¶23

Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant in the Court has been taken on record.

¶24

Respondent No.2-complainant Manjit Kaur alias Bobby has been identified by her counsel Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has received Rs.8,50,000/towards present and future alimony and stri dhan and she does not want to pursue the present FIR as a compromise has been effected between the parties.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Annexure P3 statement made by petitioner No.1 Baljit Singh and Annexure P4 statement made by respondent No.2-complainant Manjit Kaur alias Bobby before the District Judge, Amritsar, in a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon copy of judgment dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P5) whereby marriage between petitioner No.1 Baljit Singh and respondent No.2 Manjit Kaur has been dissolved by way of consent decree.

¶26

Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2wife has also stated that she has agreed to facilitate quashing of FIR. Therefore, he prays on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant that FIR

¶27

Criminal Misc. No. M-4564 of 2009 3

¶28

be quashed.

¶29

In view of this, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings will serve no useful purpose.

¶30

It has been held in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888 that compromise not only promotes peace in the society but also saves parties from litigation. The view has been further reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052 .

¶31

In view of the law laid down in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, and the statement made by respondent No.2-estranged wife, present petition is accepted and impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings is quashed.

¶32

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶33

April 2, 2009 “ DK ”

Baljit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Inderjeet @ Inder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Randhir Singh and Ors. Vs Amarjitsngh Andors

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhupender Malik Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Harminder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Kashmir Singh Vs M/S Preet Hire Purchase& Leasingh Carpn.