Allowed

Baljinder Singh Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2012CRM-M/14923/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC due to a compromise reached between the petitioners and respondents, involving the payment of money and return of dowry articles.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 256 dated 1.12.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

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

¶1

CRM No. M-14923 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-14923 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.7.2012.

¶5

Baljinder Singh and others

¶6

......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person along with Mr. N.S. Vedehra, Advocate. ****

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 256 dated 1.12.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Section 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 1.5.2012 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with the intervention of the relatives and respectables, the parties have arrived at a compromise.

¶17

Respondents No.2 and 3 are present in person and have admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. They have also stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. They have also tendered their affidavits wherein they have stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

¶18

CRM No. M-14923 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

` 75,000/- have been handed over by the petitioners to respondents No. 2 and 3 in the court in cash.

¶21

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

¶22

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC

¶23

192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:-

¶24

“23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?

¶25

CRM No. M-14923 of 2012 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.”

¶28

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 256 dated 1.12.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has stated that dowry articles deposited by the petitioners were lying in the Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh. Hence, respondents No. 2 and 3 would be at liberty to receive the dowry articles deposited by the petitioners in the Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh.

¶31

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶32

July 05, 2012 Gurpreet

Baljinder Singh Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljinder Singh Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

M/S Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana

Mohan Lal Vs Ram Talwar

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Gaurav Rai Vs State of Haryana

Channo Devi @ Charno Vs State of Haryana & Anr.