The Single Judge quashed a criminal FIR under matrimonial sections upon the complainant admitting that a compromise was effected between the parties, citing established law.
The impugned FIR No.49 dated 17.04.2011 and all consequential proceedings under Sections 498-A, 324, 323 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No.M-1767 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-1767 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 18, 2012.
Gurdial Singh and others
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sumeet Abrol, A.A.G. Punjab counsel for the respondent-State.
Complainant-respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
CRM No.3548 of 2012.
The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRM M-1767 of 2012.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.49 dated 17.04.2011 under Sections 498-A, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Kharar, District Mohali (Annexure-P1), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure-P2).
Notice of motion.
-2-
CRM No.M-1767 of 2012
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sumeet Abrol, A.A.G. Punjab accepts the notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Respondent No.2-complainant is also present in person with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that in view of the compromise effected between the parties, the complainant, present in the Court, has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab , 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 .
Dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.49 dated 17.04.2011 under Sections 498-A, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Kharar, District Mohali, along with all consequential proceedings qua petitioners Gurdial Singh, Smt. Kamal Jit Kaur and Jai Deep Singh is, hereby, quashed.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
January 18, 2012. Sachin M.
CRM No.M-1767 of 2012 -3-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR under matrimonial offences can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of a compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶27
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurdial Singh and others
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
