Allowed

Amarjit Singh @ Vicky and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Nov 2012CRM-M/17243/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered under various IPC sections and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing was granted in a matrimonial dispute where all parties had reached a genuine compromise, confirmed by statements before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereby avoiding an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.258 dated 16.12.2009 under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC and consequential proceedings quashed.

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

¶1

..1..

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-17243 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-17243 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 01, 2012

¶5

Amarjit Singh @ Vicky & Others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Deepinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶14

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.258 dated 16.12.2009 under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station, B Division, Amritsar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶15

Vide order dated 22.08.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for getting their statements with regard to the compromise recorded. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was also directed to send his/her detailed report in that regard.

¶16

In compliance thereof, respondent No.2-Ravinder Pal Singh as well as all the five petitioners did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The status report to that effect has also been received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶17

..2..

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-17243 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

Amritsar. Ravinder Pal Singh-complainant/respondent No.2 stated that FIR No.258 dated 16.12.2009 under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC was lodged by him against the petitioners and one Charanjit Singh. He further stated that he had compromised the matter with the petitioners without any pressure and undue influence. He also stated that he had no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Similar statements were suffered by the petitioners. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, reveals that the compromise seems to be genuine.

¶20

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kamaljit Singh, Police Station, C Division, Amritsar, submits that initially there were six accused but during the pendency of the investigation Charanjit Singh has expired. Learned State counsel, after going through the statements and the status report, sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, submits that she has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant also admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute which has been sorted out due to intervention of the respectable and

¶23

..3..

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M-17243 of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

elderly people of the society. He further submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 as well as the petitioners have already appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and suffered their statements with regard to the compromise. He also submits that the daughter of respondent No.2/complainant as well as petitioner No.1 have already filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

¶26

In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on the ratio of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 1968 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, SLP (Criminal) No. 8989 of 2010, decided on 24.09.2012.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

This criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute which has been sorted out due to intervention of the respectable and the family friends. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, reveals that the compromise was without any threat, pressure or coercion. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also admits the factum of compromise. Even the learned counsel for the State after seeking instructions from ASI Kamaljit Singh has admitted the factum of compromise. The dispute amongst the private parties is of personal nature. Since the matter has amicably been settled, the continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law and the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are

¶29

Criminal Misc. No.M-17243 of 2012 (O&M)

¶30

..4..

¶31

bleak.

¶32

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case; the factum of compromise and the ratio of the judgments in the cases of Jagdish Chanana and Gian Singh (supra) , the present petition is allowed and FIR No.258 dated 16.12.2009 under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station, B Division, Amritsar, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶33

November 01, 2012 seema

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

Amarjit Singh @ Vicky and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh @ Vicky and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Surenerpal Singh Kohli & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sonu Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Dayanand Vs State of Haryana

Balbir Singh Sodhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Onkar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.