Allowed

Udit Bhola and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2012CRM-M/11812/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR registered over matrimonial discord. The Court allowed the petition upon a verified affidavit confirming an amicable compromise between the parties, ruling that continuing proceedings was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The FIR dated 21.04.2010 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Udit Bhola and Others Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 11812 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 11812 of 2012 Date of decision: 24.05.2012

¶4

Udit Bhola and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)

¶5

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶6

-.-

¶7

Present: Mr. V K Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners

¶8

Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab

¶9

Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶15

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 55 dated 21.04.2010 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station Kapurthala City District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 17.04.2012 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶16

In the present case, the marital discord between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, led to filing of the said FIR. Now the matter has been

¶17

CRM No. M 11812 of 2012 2

¶18

amicably settled.

¶19

Complainant- Roohie is present in Court along with her counsel. She filed her affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that aforesaid FIR was got registered by her. Now with the intervention of the respectables, the matter has been compromised and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶20

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.

¶21

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:-

¶22

“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.”

¶23

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶24

Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶25

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved

¶26

CRM No. M 11812 of 2012 3

¶27

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

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶29

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant, 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.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 55 dated 21.04.2010 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station Kapurthala City District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶33

24.05.2012 mohan

Udit Bhola and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udit Bhola 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

Darshan Pal Toora and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pardeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sant Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Mohinder Kumar etc. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manoj Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sachin Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.