Quashed

Satwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2010CRM-M/1790/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings on the basis of a compromise between parties in a matrimonial dispute, despite the compromise silently regarding quashing. The order relied on the Presiding Officer's report confirming amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 51 dated 3.5.2005 registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M 1790 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M 1790 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2010

¶5

Satwinder Singh and others

¶6

.........Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab & ors

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶13

Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶14

GURDEV SINGH, J (Oral)

¶15

Heard.

¶16

The petitioners Satwinder Singh, Nirmal Singh, Bimal Kaur and Arjinder Kaur have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties and the statement (Annexure P-2) made by respondent No. 3 before the District Judge, Gurdaspur in the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, recorded in judgment dated 1.12.2009 (Annexure P-3).

¶17

On notice of motion having been issued, replies have

¶18

-2-

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M 1790 of 2010

¶20

been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 along with an Affidavit of respondent No. 3 (Annexure R-1). The above-said FIR was got registered by respondent No. 2-Chain Singh, who is the father of respondent No. 3-Malkiat Kaur in which the statement was made regarding the curelty and harassment meted out to respondent No.3. All the respondents have admitted the factum of compromise in their replies/affidavit.

¶21

The report of the trial Court was called for if the parties have entered into such a compromise and if so what were the terms thereof.

¶22

Report of the Presiding Officer has been received. It has been submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a compromise (Ex. C-I). Though there is no specific mention of the quashing of the FIR in that compromise, yet it can be inferred therefrom and the statements of the parties recorded before the trial Court that the matter has already been settled between the parties.

¶23

In view of the compromise, so entered, between the parties, the above said FIR and all the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed.

¶24

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE

¶26

12.5.2010 preeti

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M 1790 of 2010 -3-

Satwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gian Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Preeti and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mohinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.