Quashed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2012CRM-M/22562/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal miscellaneous petitions challenging an FIR registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, the Court quashed proceedings based on a recorded compromise affidavit. Parties settled matrimonial disputes, agreed to divorce by mutual consent, the husband waived custody, and financial compensation was arranged. The Court held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows quashing the FIR when a genuine,

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.196 dated 16.12.2009 and all subsequent proceedings; discharged petitioners-accused from criminal cases.

Dharminder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-22562 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(1) Criminal Misc.No.M-22562 of 2011 Dharminder Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents (2) Criminal Misc.No.M-33581 of 2010 Tarlok Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶5

Date of Decision:27.04.2012

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶7

Present: Mr.Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr.R.P.S.Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶9

Nemo for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶12

As, identical points of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above-mentioned both the petitions, for quashing the same very FIR(Annexure P-1), on the basis of compromise, by means of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition.

¶13

Concisely, the relevant facts, which are essential to be noticed to decide the present petitions and emanating from the record are that,, the marriage of complainant-Balwinder Kaur, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with petitioner No.1-accused Dharminder Singh son of Tarlok

¶14

Criminal Misc.No.M-22562 of 2011 2

¶15

Singh, on 31.01.2005, according to the Sikh Rites and Ceremonies at Batala, District Gurdaspur. After solemnization of the marriage, they started residing together, cohabited as a husband and wife and a female child, namely, Gurpreet Kaur was born out of the said wedlock on 21.01.2006. Her parents were stated to have spent more than Rs.2 lacs and gave sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage. Her husband and his relatives were not satisfied with the dowry and demanded more dowry articles. On her refusal, she was turned out of her matrimonial home.

¶16

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the complainant that, the petitioners-accused have treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant-Balwinder Kaur, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused (in both the petitions), vide FIR No.196 dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, by the police of Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar(Rural).

¶17

During the pendency of the investigation, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of affidavit(Annexure P-2).

¶18

Having settled the matter, now the petitioners have preferred the present petitions, to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that, they have amicably settled their disputes, at the intervention of Members Panchayat and respectables of the village. The petitioners-accused have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to her and Rs.2 lacs to her minor daughter Gurpreet Kaur, who is residing with her. It was agreed that petitioner No.1-Dharminder Singh(husband) will not claim the custody of the

¶19

Criminal Misc.No.M-22562 of 2011 3

¶20

minor child and all the cases between the parties will be withdrawn. The parties are agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent by way of filing a petition under Section 13-B of The Hindu Marriage Act. Now, they have no grudge against each other. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) registered against them and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶21

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Alok Singh, J.) passed the following order on November 01, 2011:-

¶22

“Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 14.11.2011. Learned Trial Court shall record statements of the parties on the compromise and shall submit its report about the genuineness and correctness of the compromise.”

¶23

In pursuance thereof, the Area Magistrate submitted his report bearing No.4363 dated 15.11.2011, which in substance is as under:-

¶24

“That vide said order of the Hon'ble High Court, the parties were directed to appear before this Court on 14.11.2011 for getting their statements recorded regarding compromise. As per FIR, present case was got registered on the complaint of Smt.Balwinder Kaur. She got recorded statement to the effect that matter has been compromised without any pressure or threat. She placed on file photocopy of her Voter Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India. Waryam Singh brother of complainant identified her in the Court alongwith Panch Sawinder Singh of the Gram panchayat of village of complainant. They also placed on file their identity cards. Accused persons namely Jaswant Kaur, Tarlok Singh and Dharminder Singh have also got recorded their statements that matter has been compromised, without any pressure. From the statements of parties, this Court has come to the conclusion that parties have arrived at genuine and correct compromise with their free will.”

¶25

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by means of affidavit(Annexure P-2) and report of the trial Court.

¶26

¶27

Criminal Misc.No.M-22562 of 2011

¶28

Such, thus, being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in these petitions is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?

¶29

Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of matrimonial dispute between the parties, the present petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.

¶30

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law with regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties by virtue of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶31

in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another

¶32

2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶33

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under Section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the

¶34

¶35

Criminal Misc.No.M-22562 of 2011

¶36

same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure.

¶37

Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to matrimonial disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement within the framework and restriction described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶38

As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, with the intervention of Members Panchayat and respectables of the village, by virtue of affidavit(Annexure P-2). The petitioners-accused have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to her and Rs.2 lacs to her minor daughter Gurpreet Kaur, who is residing with her. It was agreed that petitioner No.1-Dharminder Singh(husband) will not claim the custody of the minor child. The parties are further agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, by filing the divorce petition. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. The version in regard to the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the trial Court in its indicated report. Therefore, to me, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this relevant connection.

¶39

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.196 dated 16.12.2009(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and the petitionersaccused are accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal cases in the obtaining circumstances of the cases.

¶40

Criminal Misc.No.M-22562 of 2011

¶41

¶42

Needless to mention that, both the parties will abide by the terms & conditions of the compromise/affidavit in letter and spirit. In case of breach of any terms & conditions of the compromise/affidavit by any of the parties, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to file the fresh petitions in this relevant behalf.

¶43

April 27, 2012 seema

¶44

Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharminder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

M/S Anc Clothing & Ors. Vs M/S Ansh International & Anor.

M/S Devta Steel Rolling Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Ors.

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Radha Sami Transport Co. Jind Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

M/S Niranjan Rice Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisisoner of Income TAX-1, Jalandhar