Allowed

Sandeep Sahni and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2012CRM-M/27486/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition was filed to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. The Court noted that the parties had compromised, deposited the agreed sum, and a divorce decree had been passed. Both the complainant and the State had no objection to quashing. Relying on precedent, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.233 dated 29.08.2003 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

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

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-27486 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

..1..

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-27486 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 12, 2012

¶5

Sandeep Sahni & Others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab. Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶14

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.233 dated 29.08.2003, under Sections 406, 498-A and 506, read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶15

Vide order dated 27.08.2012, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial court on 11.09.2012 for getting their statements with regard to the compromise recorded. The learned trial court was also directed to send a status report in that regard.

¶16

In compliance thereof, respondent No.2-Reena Sahni and the petitioners did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. Reena Sahni stated that she had effected a compromise with the petitioners and they had deposited the loan

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-27486 of 2011 (O&M) ..2..

¶18

amount and she had also received the balance amount. She further stated that she had no objection if the proceedings are quashed. The similar joint statement was suffered by the petitioners. The report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, reveals that the compromise effected between the private parties was without any pressure, threat or coercion.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶20

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vinod Kumar, Police Station, Model Town, Patiala, admits the factum of compromise. Learned State counsel, after going through the statements and the status report, sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, submits that she has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the conditions of the compromise effected between the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant have been fulfilled. The amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been paid to complainant/ respondent No.2. He further submits that a decree of divorce has already been granted.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The present criminal litigation has arisen out of

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M-27486 of 2011 (O&M) ..3..

¶25

matrimonial dispute which has been sorted out due to intervention of the respectable and the elderly people of the society. A decree of divorce has already been passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala. The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to respondent No.2-complainant. The statements of respondent No.2/complainant and the petitioners have already been recorded by the learned trial court with regard to the compromise. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant as well as learned counsel for the State have no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed. Since the matter has amicably been settled, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak therefore continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.

¶26

In view of the factum of compromise and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.233 dated 29.08.2003, under Sections 406, 498-A and 506, read with Section 34, IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶27

October 12, 2012 seema

¶28

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

Sandeep Sahni and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sahni and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs Chander Kanta

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Varinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jaideep Bandhu Vs Chandigarh Admn. & Anr.

Satbir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Nisha Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.