Allowed

Satpal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2010CRM-M/18807/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings for matrimonial offences. The Court found that the parties had reached a settlement during mediation, rendering further criminal prosecution a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.205 dated 24.08.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Satpal & Others Vs State of Haryana & Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18807 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18807 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 06, 2010

Satpal & Ors.

........Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Sukhvir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person.

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.205 dated 24.08.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), Police Station Nissing (Annexure P-I) and subsequent proceedings arising thereto.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during Mediation and Conciliation Centre proceedings, the parties had arrived at a settlement.

¶17

Respondents No.2, who is present in person and has been identified by Assistant Sub Inspector Joginder Singh who has come to assist learned State counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. During the Mediation and Conciliation proceedings, the matter has

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18807 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶19

been compromised between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶20

Order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karnal dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) reads as under:-

¶21

“File received from the Mediation and Conciliation Center, Karnal. Statement of the complainant as well as accused identified by their counsel recorded to the effect that on 28.01.2010, compromise was effected between the parties in the mediation and Conciliation Center, Karnal which is EX.PW2/D and they shall remain bind by the compromise. They further stated that no case will be filed regarding this matrimonial dispute and all the disputes have been settled. They further sought one month time for filing the petition for quashing of the F.I.R in the Hon'ble High Court. In view of the statement made by the parties, case is adjourned to 04.03.2010 for further proceedings”.

¶22

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶23

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18807 of 2010 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in para Nos.23 and 24 has held as under :-

¶27

“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facts. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶28

On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of the Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”

¶29

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to

¶30

Crl. Misc. No. M- 18807 of 2010 (O&M) -4-

¶31

live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue.

¶32

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.205 dated 24.08.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nissing (Annexure P-I) and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶33

(SABINA) September 06, 2010 JUDGE G.Aro ra

Satpal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal & Others v. State of Haryana & Another

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

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Laxmi Devi and Ors. Vs Gindori Devi and Anr.

Gursharan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dilraj Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pushap Kumar and Anr. Vs Hans Raj

Tota Ram Vs Mahender & Anr.