Allowed

Biraja Prasad Malik v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2011CRM-M/9119/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC regarding domestic violence and dowry harassment. The court relied on the Full Bench judgment of Kulwinder Singh and the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Arvind Barsaul, finding that the matter had been mutually compromised with the complainant receiving settlement money.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 7 dated 08.2.2005 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and all consequential proceedings have been quashed.

Biraja Prasad Malik Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M- 9119 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M- 9119 of 2011 Date of decision:-25.4.2011

Biraja Prasad Malik

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Advocate with Mr. Harish Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

¶14

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 7 dated 08.2.2005 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahpurkandi, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise.

¶16

As per FIR, marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized and during the stay at her matrimonial home, the complainant was harassed mentally and physically for want of dowry. In this background, the FIR was registered.

¶17

Counsel for respondent No.2 has put in appearance and has placed on record the written statement in the form of affidavit of complainant Zeenat Malik. Complainant is present in the Court and has been duly identified by here

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M- 9119 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

counsel. As per contents of written statement of complainant, the matter has been mutually compromised and a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent has been filed before the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 6.4.2010. As per settlement arrived at, the complainant has already received Rs.3.50 lacs and the remaining final payment of Rs.3.50 lacs will be given to the complainant after making the statement before the Court. Respondent No.2-complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.

¶21

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 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 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.”

¶23

Criminal Misc. No. M- 9119 of 2011

¶24

-3-

¶25

Consequently, in view of the written statement of respondent No.2Zeenat Malik and in view of 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 the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 7 dated 08.2.2005 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahpurkandi, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of.

¶27

April 25, 2011 Vijay Asija

¶28

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

Biraja Prasad Malik v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biraja Prasad Malik 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

Sucha Singh Vs Addl.Director ETC.(MAIN5)

Dalel Singh Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Sham Lal Saini Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

N K Jain Vs Madhu Jindal

Gram Panchayat Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narender Pal Singh Vs Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar and Ors.