Allowed

Surjit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2012CRM-M/10850/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed in a matrimonial dispute arising under Sections 498-A, 494, 420 and 406 IPC. High Court quashed the FIR upon recording a solemn affidavit stating a complete compromise and full payment of settled amount, invoking settled law to promote harmony.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.116 dated 12.10.2010 under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 494 IPC is quashed.

Surjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-10850 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-10850 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.03.2012

¶5

Surjit Singh and others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶11

Present:Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Hardev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Durga Dutt Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶18

¶19

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶20

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.116 dated 12.10.2010 under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 494 IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶21

The FIR was registered against the present petitioners by respondent No.2-Satinder Jit Kaur daughter of S. Beant Singh. Due to the intervention of both the sides and Panchayats, the matter has been compromised. As per the compromise, the complainant respondent No.2Satinder Jit Kaur does not wish to pursue the above mentioned FIR against the petitioners. An affidavit was also executed affirming the factum of compromise and the same is placed on record as P-2.

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-10850 of 2011

¶23

¶24

Respondent no.2/complainant is present in the Court. A separate statement of respondent No.2 has also been recorded. It is duly stated by her that the matter has been compromised and as per the compromise, she was to receive an amount of Rs.7 lacs, in total. However, out of the said amount, she had already received a sum of Rs.5 lacs vide Demand Draft No.UBC-037458 dated 10.01.2011. Today, she has received the balance amount of Rs.2 lacs in the form of Drafts bearing Nos.052582 and 052581 both of dated 16.03.2012. She further states that she is now satisfied and has no other claim against the petitioners. It is further stated by her in the statement that the matter should be finally closed and she has no objection if the FIR, in question, is quashed.

¶25

The present FIR arises out of the matrimonial dispute. The matter having been compromised, it is fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR.

¶26

The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under :-

¶27

“ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the

¶28

Crl. Misc. No.M-10850 of 2011

¶29

¶30

wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶31

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under :-

¶32

“ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶33

In the present case, the dispute arises out of the matrimonial dispute. The same has been compromised. In view of the settled position of law, it would be just and proper to quash the FIR for peace, harmony and thus allow the parties to move on in life.

¶34

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.116 dated 12.10.2010 under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 494 IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga is hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

¶35

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶36

20.03.2012 gurpreet

Surjit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Chaman Lal Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mehar Chand Vs Uhbvnl & Ors.

Dharam Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Monika Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.