The Court quashed FIR No. 39 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC due to a family settlement reached through the Medication and Conciliation Centre, rendering further litigation unnecessary.
The impugned FIR No. 39 dated 29.4.2010 and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner are 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.
1
Crl. Misc.No. M-37248 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc.No. M-37248 of 2010 Date of decision : 17.02.2012
Avtar Singh
......Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.G.S.Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No. 39 dated 29.4.2010 under Sections 406/498-A and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur Nawanshahr is sought on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail in which the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, where the matter has been settled by both the parties, which is evident from Annexure P-2. It is noted in the settlement that the petitioner would pay Rs.50,000/- and would also return one gold ring to the complainant and both the parties would withdraw all the cases which they filed against each other.
Learned counsel also placed on record a copy of petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act moved by the complainant and a
2
Crl. Misc.No. M-37248 of 2010
copy of statement of petitioner made before District Judge, Sangrur, which is taken on record as Annexure A-1. It has been mentioned in the statement that the petitioner (Avtar Singh) settled the dispute with the complainant.
Learned counsel for the State does not controvert the above submissions.
Heard.
Keeping in view the fact that respondent has refused to receive
the summon, contents of the family settlement arrived at between the parties before Medication and Conciliation of this Court and the statement made by the petitioner before the trial Court, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
In the fact situation and 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 , the impugned FIR No. 39 dated 29.4.2010 under Sections 406/498-A and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur Nawanshahr is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
February 17, 2012 mks
( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under Sections 406/498-A and 506 of IPC should be quashed in view of the family settlement reached between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and anotherRelied on¶26
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Avtar Singh
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
