Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2012CRM-M/25938/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The court noted a compromise between the parties and the complainant's affidavit, ruling that no useful purpose would be served by continuing criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 57 dated 25.05.2011 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

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

¶1

CRM No. M 25938 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 25938 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.05.2012

¶4

Gurpreet Singh and others ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Mr. K S Sidhu, DAG, Punjab

¶11

Mr. Shivraj Angi, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 57 dated 25.05.2011 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station City Fazilka, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 26.07.2011 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶18

In the present case, the matrimonial dispute between petitioner

¶19

CRM No. M 25938 of 2011 2

¶20

No. 1 and respondent No. 2 led to filing of the said FIR. ComplainantDaljit Kaur is present in Court along with her counsel. She filed her affidavit in Court today stating therein that a compromise has been affected between the parties on 26.07.2011 and she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶21

From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings.

¶22

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another- 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:-

¶23

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.”

¶24

The Apex Court in the case of ' Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:-

¶25

“6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in

¶26

CRM No. M 25938 of 2011 3

¶27

criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶28

The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

¶29

Taking into account the allegations, compromise as well as affidavit of the complainant, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 57 dated 25.05.2011 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station City Fazilka, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶31

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶33

15.05.2012 mohan

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet 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

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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Nand Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rekha and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hitender Singh and Ors. Vs Jaspreet Kaur

Gurpal Singh Vs Kishan Chand