Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2012CRM-M/13420/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, and 120-B IPC registered for matrimonial discord. The High Court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the complainant admitted to receiving money, continuing criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 167 and subsequent proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC are quashed.

Sachin Mehta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M 13420 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 13420 of 2012 Date of decision: 24.05.2012

¶4

Sachin Mehta and others ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Ruminderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab

¶11

Mr. Ajay Chauhan, 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. 167 dated 13.07.2005 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, Police Station City Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 27.04.2012 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

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

¶19

CRM No. M 13420 of 2012 2

¶20

been amicably settled.

¶21

Complainant-Deep Mala is present in Court along with her counsel. She filed her reply by way of affidavit, admitting the contents of the petition. She has also got her statement recorded in the Court stating therein that in pursuance to the said compromise, she has received a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- in cash from petitioner No. 2 and she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶22

From the above, it is apparent 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

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

¶26

CRM No. M 13420 of 2012

¶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, 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.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 167 dated 13.07.2005 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, Police Station City Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the said compromise.

¶30

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶32

24.05.2012 mohan

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Mehta and Ors. 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

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.

Udit Bhola and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another