Allowed

Tarsem Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2012CRM-M/36577/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR against petitioners for matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment under Section 498-A IPC. Relying on a valid compromise and pending mutual consent divorce, the court allowed quashing of proceedings to promote harmony and dignity.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.19 dated 14.02.2011 and subsequent proceedings quashed; petitioners acquitted.

Tarsem Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-36577 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-36577 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision:24.02.2012

¶6

Tarsem Singh and another ......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Harinder Pal Singh Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms.Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶15

The symposium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for

¶16

the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, the marriage of complainant Daljit Kaur(respondent No.2)(for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with petitioner Tarsem Singh on 01.09.2008, according to the Sikh Rites and Ceremonies at village Jarkhelan Kheri, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The mother and brother of the complainant were stated to have given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage, but the petitioner and his mother-Ranjit Kaur were not satisfied with the dowry articles. They demanded cash of Rs.4,00,000/- and other dowry articles. They also maltreated, gave beatings to the complainant and turned her out of the matrimonial home.

¶17

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of

¶18

¶19

Criminal Misc.No.M-36577 of 2011

¶20

events, in all, according to the complainant that, the petitioner and his mother have treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainantDaljit Kaur, the present case was registered against the petitioners(accused), vide FIR No.19 dated 14.02.2011(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fetehgarh Sahib.

¶21

After completion of the investigation, the challan/final police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented by the police and the petitionersaccused were accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of the indicated offence by the trial Magistrate.

¶22

During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise(Annexure P-2). The complainant agreed to receive Rs.10,00,000/- as lump sum, in lieu of maintenance etc. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner-Tarsem Singh and the complainant have already filed a joint petition, for dissolution of their marriage, by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, as contemplated under Section 13-B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶23

Having compromised the matter, now, the petitioners have preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that they have amicably settled their all disputes, by way of compromise(Annexure P-2), with the intervention of the respectables and common friends. Not only that, the complainant has also filed short reply by way of affidavit today in the Court to this effect. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the mutual settlement between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶24

Such, thus, being the position on record, now the sole question that

¶25

¶26

Criminal Misc.No.M-36577 of 2011

¶27

arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed in this respect or not?

¶28

Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this context.

¶29

Possibly, no one can dispute that the law with regard to quashing the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of criminal dispute, by virtue of compromise between the parties, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases 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 inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of mutual settlement between the parties.

¶30

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid 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 everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way 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. 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 attracted in the present

¶31

¶32

Criminal Misc.No.M-36577 of 2011

¶33

case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶34

As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise(Annexure P-2) and would abide by the terms & conditions of the compromise. The petitioner-husband has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to his wife as lump sum maintenance. They have already filed the joint petition for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Having settled their disputes they want to live in peace and harmony. Thus, it would be seen that since, compromise is in their welfare and interest, so, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties 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.

¶35

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.19 dated 14.02.2011(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶36

February 24, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Tarsem Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & 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

Miss Pooja Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab

Ram Parkash Verma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mahavir Singh Dhanda & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Decided Case)

Mukandi Lal Singla Vs United Commercial Bank and Anr.

Rakesh Arora Vs State of Punjab

R.K. Gupta Vs State of Hry. & Ors.