This Court quashed the FIR under Section 498-A IPC and consequential proceedings following a valid compromise between matrimonial parties and the passing of a divorce decree, citing abuse of process.
The impugned FIR No. 75, dated 23.5.2012, under Section 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 22864 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 15, 2012
Parmeet Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
CRM-M No. 22864 of 2012 (O&M)
2
the intervention of the relatives and respectable of the society. She had no grudge against the petitioner. The compromise has been effected without any undue influence or pressure. She also stated that in terms of the compromise, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of the marriage was filed and a decree of divorce was passed on 4.10.2012. She also stated that she had no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. Similar statement was suffered by the petitioner.
CRM-M No. 22864 of 2012 (O&M)
3
Pawan Kumar of Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib, admits the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
November 15, 2012 Pkapoor
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Section 498-A IPC and consequential proceedings should be quashed in view of the facts of compromise between private parties and subsequent divorce decree.
Whether the pendency of proceedings in this case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Whether the Supreme Court judgment ratio in B.S. Joshi is applicable to the facts of this case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and anotherFollowed¶19
2003 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888
B.S. JoshiFollowed¶27
supra
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parmeet Singh
State of Punjab
Ashima Sood
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
