Single judge allowed compromise and quashed FIR and proceedings based on mutual consent divorce order passed by Fast Track Court and previous SC precedent.
FIR No.210, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., Charge-sheet and consequential proceedings 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.
CRM No.M-34425 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-34425 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:23.4.2012
Amit Masih and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Ms.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajender Mathur, AAG, Punjab. Ms.Anita Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
CRM No.8060 of 2012
The present application is allowed. Annexures P-6 to P-11 are taken on record.
CRM No.M-34425 of 2010
Quashing of FIR No.210 dated 26.11.2004 registered under Sections 376, 406, 498-A and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure P-2), Charge-sheet dated 21.4.2006 and the proceedings consequential thereto are being sought on the basis of compromise dated 13.9.2010.
The petitioner No.1 was married to the complainant on 14.5.2004 according to Hindu rites. One female child was born from the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, the couple
CRM No.M-34425 of 2010
2
separated, which resulted the registration of the FIR in question.
At the state of framing evidence, the parties have entered into a compromise. A petition under Section 10-A of the Indian Divorce Act (for short `the Act') for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent has been filed by the parties. Kusum Masih, complainant, made her statement to the effect that they have decided to dissolve our marriage with mutual consent under Section 10(a) of the Act. Her daughter Lovepreet will remain in her custody and the petitioner Amit Masih will not claim the custody of the daughter in future. She undertook not to file any further proceedings against the petitioner and his family members. Nothing is due against each other. This statement was recorded on 15.2.2011, which is at Annexure P-7. To the same effect, the statement of petitioner is annexed as Annexure P-8. Subsequently, on 18.8.2011, the complainant made a statement that they are living separate from each other since 10.1.2008 and now they have mutually resolved all their disputes. She has given her consent voluntarily and with free will and without any coercion or pressure. They have agreed not to initiate any legal proceedings against each other in future.
Pursuant to the statements made by both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, dissolved the marriage under Section 10-A of the Act on mutual consent, which is evident from Annexure P-10.
On notice, respondent No.2 has put in appearance. The complainant is also present in Court and has duly been identified by her counsel. She does not dispute the order passed by the court
CRM No.M-34425 of 2010
3
below.
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 , no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. FIR No.210 dated 26.11.2004 registered under Sections 376, 406, 498-A and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure P-2), Charge-sheet dated 21.4.2006 and the proceedings consequential thereto are quashed qua the petitioners.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
23.4.2012 mks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed in light of mutual consent divorce and compromise under the principles laid down in Dr. Arvind Barsaul vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and anotherFollowed¶28
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amit Masih and others
State of Punjab and another
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
