Allowed

Jagdeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2012CRM-M/11256/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The Court held that since the marital dispute was amicably settled and a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted, quashing the proceedings served the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 42 dated 09.04.2008 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 11256 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 11256 of 2012 Date of decision: 28.05.2012

¶4

Jagdeep Singh ........Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. K D Sachdeva, Addl. A G Punjab for the respondent (s)

¶11

Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 42 dated 09.04.2008 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Gobindpur, Police District Batala (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶18

In the present case, the marital discord between the parties

¶19

CRM No. M 11256 of 2012 2

¶20

between petitioner and respondent No. 2 led to filing of the said FIR. Now, the matter has been amicably resolved. Moreover, decree of divorce by way of mutual consent in a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been granted vide judgment dated 10.05.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur.

¶21

Moreover, reply by way of affidavit of respondent No. 2 has also been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. In para 2 of the said reply, it is specifically mentioned that the answering respondent has no objection if the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

¶22

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶23

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-

¶24

“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 reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶25

CRM No. M 11256 of 2012 3

¶26

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶27

“6. We need to emphasize 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.”

¶28

Taking into account the allegations as well as reply of the complainant coupled with the fact that decree of divorce by way of mutual consent has already been granted, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 42 dated 09.04.2008 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Gobindpur, Police District Batala (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶30

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

28.05.2012 mohan

Jagdeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdeep Singh 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

Mohinder Kumar etc. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manoj Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Udit Bhola and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Bhagwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Nitin Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Punjab

Dinesh Bajaj Vs State of Haryana and Ors.