Quashed

Balvir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2011CRM-M/10339/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A IPC. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that quashing is appropriate in matrimonial disputes settled by compromise, especially where prosecution is no longer in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 192 dated 04.9.2010 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner were quashed.

Balvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M- 10339 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M- 10339 of 2011 Date of decision:-25.4.2011

Balvir Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State.

¶13

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 192 dated 04.9.2010 under Sections 323,406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.

¶15

As per FIR, the petitioner had got married with respondent No.2 on 28.11.2008 at Punjab Palace, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar. Petitioner's husband had come from abroad (France). After five months of marriage, husband of petitioner left to abroad and due to misunderstanding this FIR was registered on the allegation that on 20.7.2010 at 10.00-11.00 PM when the petitioner was sleeping with her daughter than respondent No.2 after consuming liquor started beating her. She was admitted to the Civil Hospital for medical check-up. At the time of registration of FIR, it was specifically mentioned that the dowry articles were still lying with the accused persons, which they have removed.

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M- 10339 of 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

After registration of FIR, compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No.2 husband of petitioner is living abroad and as per the petition, she is residing at her matrimonial home with her daughter and she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings in the FIR in question as the pendency of the present case would be of no use rather it may create unpleasant situation for petitioner and her matrimonial family.

¶19

Counsel for the State has informed the Court that respondent No.2 has been declared proclaimed offender on 21.4.2011 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jalandhar. Petitioner is present in the Court and has been duly identified by her counsel. In view of the above narrated facts that since the petitioner has gone back to her matrimonial house with her daughter and is now living happily, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings initiated in the abovesaid FIR.

¶20

In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another

¶21

2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

¶22

“Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced

¶23

Criminal Misc. No. M- 10339 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.”

¶26

Consequently, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 192 dated 04.9.2010 under Sections 323,406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of.

¶28

April 25, 2011 Vijay Asija

¶29

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

Balvir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balvir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Mohd. Anwar and Ors. Vs Chairman, Deptt. Selection Committee etc.

Surinder Singh Pathania Vs Union Territory Khadi and Village Indust

Prahlad Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Naveen and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Nirmaljeet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sajjan Kumar Vs State of Haryana