Allowed

Ravinder Singh Dhanju and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Feb 2012CRM-M/14709/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court order quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and IPC 120 and a criminal complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court allowed two petitions filed by opposing parties in a matrimonial dispute citing an amicable settlement and recording genuineness by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions are allowed; FIR No. 604 and Criminal Complaint No. 11259 along with subsequent proceedings are quashed.

Ravinder Singh Dhanju and Ors. Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM M 14709 of 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision: 06.02.2012

¶4

1. CRM M 14709 of 2009

¶5

Ravinder Singh Dhanju and others ........ Petitioners Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 25087 of 2010 Baljinder Kaur and others ......Petitioners Versus Ravinder Singh Dhanju and another .....Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. G L Sadana, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 14709 of 2009)

¶10

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 25087 of 2010

¶11

Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana

¶12

Mr. G P S Bal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 ( CRM M 25087 of 2010)

¶13

Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 – complainant (CRM M 14709 of 2009)

¶14

Mr. J S Toor, Advocate for respondent No. 2 ( CRM M 25087 of 2010

¶15

-.-

¶16

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

¶17

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶18

CRM M 14709 of 2009 2

¶19

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶20

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶21

This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid petitions as these arise out of the same matrimonial dispute between the same parties.

¶22

Vide CRM M 14709 of 2009, the petitioners namely, Ravinder Singh Dhanju, Baldev Singh Dhanju, Kulwant Kaur and Varinder Singh have sought quashing of FIR No.604 dated 29.11.2008 under Section 498A, 406, 506, 120 IPC, P S Civil Lines, Hissar (P1) got registered by Baljinder Kaur (respondent No. 2), whereas, vide CRM M 25087 of 2010, the petitioners namely, Baljinder Kaur, Tara Singh Thind, Smt. Jaswant kaur, Ravinder Thind, Baldev Singh Thind, Nirmal Singh Thind, Mukesh Bhardwaj have sought quashing of Criminal complaint No. 11259 of 2009 (UT Chandigarh) titled Ravinder Singh Dhanju v. Smt. Baljinder Kaur and others filed by Ravinder Singh Dhanju, under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 120-B and 34 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising thereto. Thus, both the parties have filed the above mentioned cases against each other.

¶23

During the pendency of both the petitions, the parties have settled their dispute amicably.

¶24

Vide this Court's order dated 09.09.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court at Chandigarh on 14.10.2011, where criminal complaint No. 11259 of 2009 titled as Ravinder Singh Dhanju v. Smt. Baljinder Kaur and others under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 120-B 34 IPC is pending for recording their statements with regard to the compromise. The trial

¶25

CRM M 14709 of 2009 3

¶26

Court was also directed to record the statement of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The trial court was also directed to send a report along with statements of the parties with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing. The concerned Court was further directed to specifically record the statement of the parties that the entire matter has been settled including the case emanating from FIR No. 604 dated 29.11.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 120 IPC registered at P S Civil Lines, Hisar.

¶27

In pursuance to the said order, now the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide endst. No. 16074 dated 18.10.2011 has forwarded the report dated 17.10.2011 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh for kind perusal of this Court. In the said report, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh has reported that from the statements of the parties, it comes out that the parties recorded their statements without any pressure or coercion in any manner. Therefore, the compromise between the parties seems to be genuine and FIR No. 604 dated 29.11.2008 under Section 498A, 406 and 120-B, PS Civil Lines, Hisar was registered at the instance of Baljinder Kaur and she has no objection if the said FIR be also quashed along with the subsequent proceedings thereto.

¶28

In the present case, a marital discord between the parties, led to filing of the said complaint as well as FIR. From the above, it is clear that the parties have settled the matter amicably. As per the compromise, all the dispute have been settled amicably and the parties have no grudge against

¶29

CRM M 14709 of 2009 4

¶30

each other have decided to live separately.

¶31

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:-

¶32

“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.”

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

“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.”

¶36

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties

¶37

CRM M 14709 of 2009 5

¶38

without any pressure. Both the complainants namely, Ravinder Singh Dhanju in the complaint as well as Smt. Baljinder Kaur in FIR, respectively, have no objection if the said complaint and FIR is quashed.

¶39

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as report of the trial Court, authenticating the factum of the said compromise, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present complaint as well as the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶40

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.604 dated 29.11.2008 under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 120 IPC, P S Civil Lines, Hissar (P1) got registered by Baljinder Kaur as well as criminal complaint No. 11259 of 2009 (UT Chandigarh) titled Ravinder Singh Dhanju v. Smt. Baljinder Kaur and others filed by Ravinder Singh Dhanju, under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 120-B and 34 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed.

¶41

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶42

Photo copy of the order be placed on the connected file.

¶43

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶44

06.02.2012 mohan

¶45

CRM M 14709 of 2009 6

¶46

CRM M 14709 of 2009 7

Ravinder Singh Dhanju and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh Dhanju and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bharat Bhushan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Priyanka and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Fauja Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Neena Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Anr.