Allowed

Anmol Kler and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2012CRM-M/3175/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Holding that the compromise was just, fair, free from undue pressure, and served the ends of justice in a matrimonial dispute, the FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 93 dated 21.10.2011 registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar for offences under sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-3175 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M- 3175 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 4^th , 2012

Anmol Kler & another

.... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab, for the State

¶14

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, complainant/respondent no.2 with her counsel Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate,

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

This is a petition brought by Anmol Kler and his mother Niranjan Kaur under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No.93 dated 21.10.2011 registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with the intervention of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court during the proceedings of Criminal Misc. No M-.36546 and 36543 of 2011. The terms of compromise have come in the mediation proceedings dated 14.2.2012.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-3175 of 2012

¶18

¶19

On notice of the petition, the complainant has put in appearance through her counsel Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate. She has herself come present in the court today with her counsel. As per the terms of the compromise, the parties have settled all their disputes amicably and agreed to withdraw the cases filed by them against each other.

¶20

In a matrimonial dispute, even if the offence is noncompoundable, the FIR and the consequent proceedings could be quashed as has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426. What has to be kept in mind while allowing quashing of the FIR is that the settlement/compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit . Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is free from undue pressure. Once it is found that the compromise is just and fair and is not brought about by undue pressure of one party on the other, then the court has to see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or that it would prevent abuse of process of law.

¶21

By the compromise all the differences between the parties have been settled. No cause of any friction is left between them and, therefore, this compromise can certainly be said to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears to the court suggestive of pressure, much less undue pressure on the complainant for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be taken by any party in the matter of compromise. The complainant is, moreover, represented by a counsel of her choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is available to her. She

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-3175 of 2012

¶23

¶24

has, moreover, come to the court to admit the factum of compromise and to see that the requirements under the compromise were complied with.

¶25

Thus, keeping in view the fact that the parties have settled the dispute and that the settlement between them is just and fair, brought about without undue pressure from any one and that the same would be securing the ends of justice, I accept the petition and quash FIR No. 93 dated 21.10.2011 registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶26

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶27

April 4^th , 2012 som

Anmol Kler and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol Kler 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

Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sukhjinder Singh @ Rinka Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jograj Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Arun Nagar Vs State of Haryana

Pankaj Threja Vs State of Punjab and Anr.