Allowed

Amritpal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2012CRM-M/16322/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a petition for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The quashing was ordered based on a genuine compromise between the petitioners and the complainant, which involved payment of a sum and agreement to settle a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 379 dated 16.10.2010 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M No. 16322 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 15, 2012

¶3

Amritpal Singh and another

¶4

…Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶9

Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶11

Mr. M.S. Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶12

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶13

The petitioners, Amritpal Singh and Sarabjit Kaur, have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 379, dated 16.10.2010, under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala, on the basis of the compromise.

¶14

Learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 2, Sarabjit Kaur, had filed CRM-M No. 32326 of 2010 for grant of anticipatory bail and during the hearing of the said petition, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for compromise. The better sense prevailed and the petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant, Amarjit Kaur, effected a compromise on 10.1.2011. He further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the compromise, a sum of 4,00,000/had already been paid to respondent No. 2-complainant, Amarjit Kaur, and the remaining amount of 1,00,000/- has been paid

¶15

CRM-M No. 16322 of 2011 (O&M)

¶16

¶17

today in this Court by way of Demand Draft No. 205588, dated 12.10.2012, drawn at ICICI Bank, a photocopy of which has been placed on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant, Amarjit Kaur, has admitted the factum of the compromise. He has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶19

Respondent No. 2-complainant, Amarjit Kaur, is present in the Court along with her mother, Smt. Joginder Kaur. The statement of respondent No. 2-complainant, Amarjit Kaur, in Hindi, has been recorded wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed in view of the compromise effected by her with the petitioners. She has further stated that she would withdraw all the cases filed by her against the petitioners and their family members. She further stated that the divorce petition filed by her before the learned District Judge, Patiala, would be converted in a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She would have no objection in making her statement for grant of divorce by mutual consent.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Gurdeep Singh of Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala, has no objection if this criminal litigation, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, is quashed in view of the compromise effected between the private parties.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

CRM-M No. 16322 of 2011 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

Due to the efforts made by the Mediator of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, the private parties have amicably sorted out their matrimonial disputes and effected a compromise. The amount settled as per the terms and conditions of the compromise, has already been paid to respondent No. 2-complainant, Amarjit Kaur by the petitioners. Respondent No. 2-complainant has also agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by her against the petitioners and their family members. She has also suffered the statement that the petition for divorce filed by her in the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala, shall be converted into a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and she would give a statement before the said Court for grant of a decree for divorce by mutual consent.

¶25

Taking into consideration the factum of the compromise effected between the private parties and the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [SLP (Criminal) No. 8989 of 2010, decided on 24.9.2012] , the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 379, dated 16.10.2010, under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala, and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The private parties shall remain bound by their respective stand.

¶26

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶27

October 15, 2012 Pkapoor

Amritpal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amritpal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and 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

Jaideep Bandhu Vs Chandigarh Admn. & Anr.

Satbir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Nisha Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Zile Singh Vs Mukand Lal etc.

M/S Rattan Professional Edu. Soc. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Parmeshwari @ Mesar Devi Vs State of Haryana