Allowed

Amit Goswami and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2010CRM-M/12106/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR under Sections 406/498A/323/34 IPC in a matrimonial dispute. The court relied on the parties' statement and recorded compromise deed to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.155 dated 26.9.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Amit Goswami and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM M-12106 of 2010 Date of Decision:24.9.2010

¶3

Amit Goswami and others

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Anshul Shahi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.155 dated 26.9.2009 under Sections 406/498A/323/34 IPC Police Station Sadar Ambala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

The FIR in question is a result of matrimonial dispute. However, the matter has been compromised. Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record. Affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 authenticating the compromise have also been placed on record. Separate statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are also recorded in the Court today to substantiate the compromise. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in their statements have stated that the matter has been compromised without any pressure and out of their own sweet will. They are bound by the

¶17

CRM M-12106 of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P-2). They have also given undertaking in their statements that respondent No.2 is to relinquish her right over the flat as agreed upon in the compromise (Annexure P-2) and sign the documents as early as possible within 7 days from 27.9.2010 and petitioner No.1 is to pay Rs.1,50,000/- immediately after signing the documents. Respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

¶20

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:-

¶21

“ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶22

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008

¶23

(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:-

¶24

“ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps

¶25

CRM M-12106 of 2010 -3-

¶26

advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶27

Taking into account that the compromise has been effected between the parties, the affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 and the statement of respondent No.2 stating that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.155 dated 26.9.2009 under Sections 406/498-A/323/34 IPC Police Station Sadar Ambala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶29

24.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE

Amit Goswami and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Goswami and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jawahar Lal Chandla and Anr. Vs Savita Chandla

Maghar Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jagdish Parshad Vaid & Others Vs State of Haryana

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.