Dismissed

Rajinder Singh & Others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2010CRM-M/32859/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for dowry demands and cruelty. The court held that the compromise was invalid because the petitioner refused to file for divorce by mutual consent unless the criminal proceedings were first quashed, thus violating the condition precedent for withdrawal of the case. The dismissal does not bar a future pe

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings dismissed; fresh petition may be filed after obtaining divorce decree.

Rajinder Singh & Others Vs State of U.T… — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-32859 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-32859 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 20, 2010

¶5

Rajinder Singh and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of UT, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

¶10

Present: Petitioners No. 1 and 2 present in person.

¶11

Mr. Kulbir Dalal, Advocate, for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Munish Rai, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

GURDEV SINGH, J.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ' the Code' ) for quashing of the FIR No. 170 dated 19.9.2005 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh, under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 406 and 498A IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the compromise effected between them and respondent No.2, at whose instance that FIR was registered.

¶16

The details of the facts are not important for deciding this petition, as there is no dispute between the parties that the said FIR was got registered and that matter was subsequently compromised between the parties. In fact, that compromise was entered into in the application filed by

¶17

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-32859 of 2009

¶19

respondent No.2 under Section 125 of the Code. Respondent No.2 agreed to receive a total sum of Rs. 1.30 lakhs, as past, present and future maintenance and agreed to dissolve the marriage with Rajinder Singhpetitioner No.1, by way of mutual consent by filing a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also agreed to withdraw the present FIR filed by her under the aforesaid Sections. The petitioners agreed to that offer of respondent No.2. Thereafter, a petition seeking divorce by way of mutual consent was filed in the District Court, Chandigarh on 13.3.2009.

¶20

The report of the trial court was called, if the parties have entered into the compromise and it was to make its report after recording the statements of the parties, regarding the genuineness of the compromise. The report of the trial court has been received. It has been reported that Sukhwinder Kaur-respondent made a statement to the effect that since Rajinder Singh and Gurnam Singh have refused to give the statement under Section 13-B of the Act, so she does not want to compromise the matter and wants to pursue the criminal case.

¶21

Certified copies of the statements made by the parties in the divorce petition have been placed on the record. Rajinder Singh-petitioner made his statement firstly on 22.1.2010 and then on 27.2.2010 that he is not ready to give divorce to respondent No. 2, unless the criminal proceedings in the above said FIR are quashed.

¶22

It is very much clear from the statement of respondent No.2 recorded before the pre-Lok Adalat, which is the basis of the compromise between the parties, that dissolution of her marriage with Rajinder Singhpetitioner by way of mutual consent, was the condition precedent for

¶23

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M-32859 of 2009

¶25

withdrawal of the criminal case. It is Rajinder Singh-petitioner who has backed out of that compromise by refusing to make a statement before the matrimonial court for the grant of decree of divorce by way of mutual consent, unless the proceedings in the FIR are quashed. When such is the position, it cannot be said that the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶26

The petition is dismissed accordingly. However, keeping in view the matrimonial alliance between the parties, this order shall not be a bar for a fresh petition for the same relief, if any, to be filed after obtaining the decree of divorce, as per the compromise between the parties.

¶27

May 20, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE

Rajinder Singh & Others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh & Others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Another

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

Vikram Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gurmeet Singh @ Jeeta Vs State of Punjab

Shamsher Singh Dahiya Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ujjagar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prodip Kumar Dutta Vs State of Punjab & Another

Gagan Verma Vs State of Punjab and Anr.