Allowed

Kamaljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2011CRM-M/22170/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and complaint filed under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The court quashed the proceedings after a compromise deed was executed, citing that the matters were settled and continuing them would disturb peace.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint No.118, order of summoning dated 5.8.2008, and FIR No.114 dated 4.9.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Roop Nagar are quashed.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM No.M-22170 of 2011(O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM No.M-22170 of 2011(O & M) Date of decision : 19.9.2011

¶6

Kamaljit Singh and others

¶7

........Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

......Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶12

Present:- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶13

Mr. KDS Sidhu, Addl. AG, Punjab

¶14

Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.2

¶15

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) :

¶16

This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prays for quashing of criminal complaint No.118 instituted on 30.5.2008, and order of summoning dated 5.8.2008.

¶17

The petition also seeks quashing of FIR No.114 dated 4.9.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Roop Nagar.

¶18

It has been pointed out that the criminal complaint and the FIR, both have been lodged at the instance of respondent No.2-Tejinder Kaur daughter of Prem Singh. The disputes between the parties have been settled. Tejinder Kaur has already taken divorce from Kamaljit Singh-petitioner No.1. The continuance of proceedings is disturbing the peace and harmony in both the families.

¶19

Tejinder Kaur present in Court as identified by her counsel Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, states that on account of matrimonial disputes, the criminal

¶20

CRM No.M-22170 of 2011(O & M) -2complaint and subsequent thereto the FIR came to be lodged. All the disputes have been settled now and she does not want to bring any evidence in Court against the petitioners. The petition be allowed.

¶21

Learned State counsel states that because the parties have entered into a compromise, the petition for quashing of FIR is not opposed.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, as also the fact that the disputes have been settled under compromise deed dated 23.2.2011, placed on record as Annexure P-4, this petition is allowed.

¶23

Criminal complaint bearing No. 118 instituted on 30.5.2008, dated 28.5.2008 and order of summoning dated 5.8.2008 and FIR No.114 dated 4.9.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Roop Nagar are hereby quashed.

¶24

(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE

¶25

19.9.2011 akm

Kamaljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaljit Singh and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Another

Lakhwinderpal Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Rajeev Kalia Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Bimla Devi Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ravinder Singh Vs Registrar of Companies and Anr.

Gurbachan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.