Allowed

Aridaman & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jan 2012CRM-M/21927/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge quashed the FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and all consequential proceedings after finding that the matrimonial parties had amicably settled their disputes with mutual consent. The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent to quash the case.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 145 dated 20.5.2005 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Aridaman & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-21927 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-21927 of 2011 Date of decision:- 04.1.2012

¶5

Aridaman Goyal and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State.

¶13

Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

¶14

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 145 dated 20.5.2005 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P- 2).

¶16

On 24.10.2001 petitioner No.1-Aridaman Goyal and respondent No.2-Anu Goyal @ Antu solemnized their marriage as per Hindu rites. Due to this wedlock a daughter was born on 04.8.2003. Due to some misunderstanding they could not proceed with their marriage and started living separately in the year 2003. The litigations were started and respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Proceedings for custody of the minor child were also initiated under the

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-21927 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

Guardian and Wards Act. With the intervention of respectables of the locality, the parties have reconciled and amicably settled their disputes. A petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent was filed and fixed for hearing on 07.1.2012 before the Civil Court at Sunam. Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 is present in the Court and is bound to make statement in the Court on 07.1.2012.. Respondent No.2 is also present in the Court and in her reply, she has stated that the matter has been amicably settled by way of compromise dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) and she has no objection if the FIR in question alongwith all consequential proceedings is quashed.

¶20

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

¶21

“Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. M-21927 of 2011

¶23

-3-

¶24

appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.”

¶25

Consequently, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra) , FIR No. 145 dated 20.5.2005 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of.

¶27

January 04, 2012 Vijay Asija

¶28

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

Aridaman & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aridaman & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Naveen & Ors. Vs State of Haryana& Anr.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hardev Sngh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Daljeet Singh @ Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Asha Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaspreet Kaur Dosanjh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others