Allowed

Jawahar Lal Chandla and Anr. v. Savita Chandla

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2010CRM-M/13069/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the First Information Report and summoning order against the petitioners in a matrimonial dispute under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, as the parties had mutually compromised and the respondent-wife resumed her matrimonial home.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No. RBT 171/1/09 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and the summoning order dated 08.07.2009 are quashed against petitioner No. 1.

Jawahar Lal Chandla and Anr. Vs Savita… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CRM No. M 13069 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M 13069 of 2010

¶5

Date of decision: 23.09.2010

¶6

Jawahar Lal Chandla and another ........ Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Savita Chandla .......Respondent(s)

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

-.-

¶11

Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate for for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Rajeev Kapila, Advocate for the respondent

¶13

-.-

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶16

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶18

CRM No. 50262 of 2010

¶19

Application is allowed and compromise dated 12.09.2010 (Annexure R-1), is taken on record.

¶20

Main case

¶21

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. RBT 171/1/09 dated 12.02.2009, filed under Section 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code titled as Savita v. Sachin Chandla and others (Annexure P1) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar as well as the summoning order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the

¶22

CRM No. M 13069 of 2010

¶23

¶24

trial Court.

¶25

The complainant is present in Court along with her counsel.

¶26

The present petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint survives only for petitioner No. 1 i.e . father-in-law as the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the petition qua petitioner No. 2 vide order dated 05.05.2010.

¶27

In the present case, the matrimonial dispute led to filing of present complaint. Now, with the intervention of relatives and friends, all the disputes between the parties have been settled and the matter has been compromised in terms of the compromise deed dated Annexure R-1. As per the compromise deed, Respondent/complainant has come back to her matrimonial home and is happily leaving with her husband. Complainant has no objection, if the aforesaid complainant as well as summoning order is quashed.

¶28

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 observed as under:-

¶29

“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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to

¶30

CRM No. M 13069 of 2010

¶31

¶32

such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶33

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶34

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps 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.”

¶35

The present case is purely personal in nature. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. Complainant - Savita Chandla is happily residing in her matrimonial home and she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶36

Taking into account the allegations and affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the aforesaid complaint and the summoning order in view of the above settled proposition of law.

¶37

Accordingly, complaint No. RBT 171/1/09 dated 12.02.2009 filed under Section 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code titled as Savita v. Sachin Chandla and others (Annexure P1) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and the summoning order dated 08.07.2009

¶38

CRM No. M 13069 of 2010

¶39

¶40

passed by the trial Court and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua petitioner No. 1.

¶41

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶42

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶43

23.09.2010

¶44

mohan

Jawahar Lal Chandla and Anr. v. Savita Chandla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Lal Chandla and Anr. v. Savita Chandla

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

Babu Ram Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ram Gopal Vs State of Haryana

Thana Ram and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab

Maghar Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Janak Raj & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others