Allowed

Gurjot Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2011CRM-M/14680/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 406, and others CPC in a matrimonial dispute where a compromise was reached between the parties. The court allowed the quashing but granted liberty to the complainant to revive the FIR if the agreed lump sum payment was not received by the due date under mutual consent divorce proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned FIR No. 235 and all subsequent proceedings; granted liberty to the complainant to revive the FIR if the remaining amount of ` 6,00,000 is not paid with the decree of divorce.

Gurjot Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-14680 of 2011

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-14680 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: 26.5.2011

¶6

Gurjot Singh and Others

¶7

…Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and Others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Nachhatter Singh Bains, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. Surinder Pal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶15

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 235 dated 8.7.2010, registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 323 and 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2).

¶17

It is a case of matrimonial dispute. The impugned FIR was lodged on the statement made by respondent No.3-Harpreet Kaur. It was stated therein that she was married with petitioner No.1-Gurjot Singh on 9.7.2007 at Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, according to Sikh Rites. He was employed as a Doctor with Employees' State Insurance Hospital. From the wedlock, a daughter named Harnoor Kaur was born.

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-14680 of 2011

¶19

¶20

It was further stated in the FIR that petitioner No.1-Gurjot Singh and his parents have harassed and maltreated the complainant and have also inflicted cruelty upon her.

¶21

It is canvassed before me that due to intervention of the respectables and relations, a compromise (Annexure P2) has been arrived at between the parties. Petitioner No.1-Gurjot Singh has agreed to pay a sum of 10,00,000 to his wife Harpreet Kaur, out of which a sum of 3,00,000 shall be kept in the Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of daughter Harnoor Kaur. The interest, which will accrue therefrom, shall be received by respondent No.3-Harpreet Kaur for future maintenance of the child and remaining amount of ` 7,00,000 shall be towards full and final settlement qua the claims of past, present and future alimony of respondent No.3-Harpreet Kaur istri dhan and the expenses incurred on the marriage.

¶22

Mr. Nachhatter Singh Bains, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Surinder Pal, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.3 have submitted that out of 10,00,000, 4,00,000 have already been paid to respondent No.3 and the remaining amount of ` 6,00,000 shall be paid on or before the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by way of mutual consent is granted. It is stated that such a petition is pending adjudication in the Court of the District Judge, Panchkula and the next date fixed for recording statement of the parties is 5.11.2011.

¶23

Since the parties have decided to bury their differences and have made a prayer for quashing of the impugned FIR, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in continuation of the

¶24

Criminal Misc. No. M-14680 of 2011

¶25

¶26

same and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶27

It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in ‘ Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another’, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that if a compromise has been effected between the parties, the Court should quash the FIR, even if the offence is noncompoundable.

¶28

It has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in ‘B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana’ 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888 that if noncompoundable offence falls under Section 406, 498-A IPC, matter can be disposed of on the basis of compromise to promote peace, amity and cordial relations between the parties.

¶29

Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s and B.S. Joshi’s cases (supra) , present FIR, along with all subsequent proceedings, is quashed. However, in case the remaining amount of ` 6,00,000 is not paid on or before the grant of decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act to the complainant/respondent No.3, she is granted liberty to revive the above said FIR.

¶30

The present petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶32

May 26, 2011 “ DK ”

Gurjot Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjot Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Atul Nibber Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Rai @ Billa and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Narender Lather and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

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