In a petition for quashing an FIR related to a matrimonial dispute, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings after the complainant and State accepted the compromise and presence of the parties in court.
FIR No.30 dated 11.03.2010 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
..1..
Criminal Misc. No.M-12144 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-12144 of 2012 Date of Decision : November 17, 2012
Deepinder Gir & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.K.S.Hissowal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rupam Aggarwal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.30 dated 11.03.2010 under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Julkan, District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
Vide order dated 07.08.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 23.08.2012 before the learned trial court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said court was also directed to send its detailed report in that regard on or before the date fixed by this Court.
In compliance thereof, the petitioners as well as respondent No.3-complainant/Manju Rani did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, reveals that the statement suffered by the complainant was voluntary one and
Criminal Misc. No.M-12144 of 2012 ..2..
without any inducement coercion etc. Respondent No.3complainant along with petitioner No.1 is present in Court, who has been identified by ASI Harminder Singh, Police Station, Julkan, District Patiala, states that now she is residing with her husband and other family members. She further states that she has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC ASI Harminder Singh, Police Station, Julkan, District Patiala, admits the factum of compromise effected between the parties and after going through the report, sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Heard.
This criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Petitioner No.1 has amicably settled scores with respondent No.3/complainant and they have started living together. Respondent No.3/complainant-Manju Rani is also present in Court and admits the factum of compromise. Learned counsel for the State has also admitted the factum of compromise and has no no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Taking into consideration the above facts, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak therefore, the continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.
..3..
Criminal Misc. No.M-12144 of 2012
In view of the factum of compromise and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.30 dated 11.03.2010 under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Julkan, District Patiala, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
November 17, 2012 seema
(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC can be quashed upon reconciliation and compromise between the spouses.
Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute settled by compromise would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and anotherApplied¶24
B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepinder Gir & Ors.
State of Punjab & Ors.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
