Quashed

Satnam Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2012CRM-M/23765/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under sections 498-A and 406 IPC based on a lawful matrimonial compromise. Following judicial precedents, the single judge held that the settlement was genuine and beneficial to the parties, thus quashing the FIR and acquitting the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No.53 dated 31.3.2012 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed; petitioners were acquitted.

Satnam Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-23765 of 2012 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M-23765 of 2012 Date of Decision:-26.9.2012

¶4

Satnam Singh @ Lahori & Anr.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶8

Present:Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr.T.S.Salana, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶11

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶12

The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Maninderjit Kaur respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR No.53 dated 31.3.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A & 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar.

¶13

After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of section 173 Cr.PC.

¶14

CRM No. M-23765 of 2012 -2-

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioners were charge sheeted for the trial of indicated offences by the trial Court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

¶16

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, by virtue of compromise dated 2.8.2012 (Annexure P2).

¶17

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, on the basis of compromise, inter-alia pleading that due to intervention of the respectables and other relatives, the parties have entered into compromise. They have decided to live peacefully in future and withdraw all the litigations pending between them. They have also decided to part their ways after settling their dispute with regard to dowry articles and permanent alimony. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.

¶18

In pursuance of notice, complainant Maninderjit Kaur appeared and filed her affidavit, reiterating the factum of compromise (Annexure P2). The parties will not file any civil or criminal case against each other. They will be bound by the terms & conditions of the compromise (Annexure P2). The complainant, who is today present in Court in person, has also reiterated the factum of genuineness and validity of compromise and maintained that she has no objection if the

¶19

CRM No. M-23765 of 2012 -3-

¶20

criminal case registered against the petitioners, by way of FIR (Annexure P1) is quashed.

¶21

In this manner, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, through the medium of compromise (Annexure P2) and affidavit of the complainant.

¶22

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the present case is, as to whether the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ?

¶23

Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the instant criminal prosecution is quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the criminal prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between them.

¶24

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 Apex Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others v. 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 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast

¶25

CRM No. M-23765 of 2012 -4-

¶26

inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶27

The crux of the law laid down in the indicated 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 ever-lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by means 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 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.

¶28

Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such matrimonial disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable in the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶29

As is evident from the record, that at the intervention of the respectables and other relatives, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise (Annexure P2). They have decided to live peacefully in future and withdraw all the litigations pending between them. They have also decided to part their ways after settling their dispute with regard to dowry articles and permanent alimony. They will be bound by the terms & conditions of the compromise (Annexure P2). The

¶30

CRM No. M-23765 of 2012 -5-

¶31

complainant, who is today present in Court in person, has also reiterated the factum of genuineness and validity of compromise (Annexure P2) and maintained that she has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by virtue of FIR (Annexure P1) is quashed. The parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute. Since the compromise is in their welfare & interest., so, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner.

¶32

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. Accordingly, the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶33

Needless to mention that, both the parties will abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P2) in letter and spirit. In case of breach of any terms & conditions of the settlement by any of the parties, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to file a fresh petition to obtain appropriate relief in this relevant connection.

¶34

26.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

Satnam Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh and Anr. 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

Gram Panchayat Nathupur Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

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

S.L. Goel Vs State (Union Territory, Chandigarh)

M/S Medical India and Anr. Vs M/S Nav Rattan Traders and Anr.

Harbans Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Paramjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.