Allowed

Charanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2013CRM-M/22568/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to quash FIR No. 43 under Section 498-A IPC registered against the petitioner. The dispute was matrimonial in nature and had been settled via a compromise agreement mediated by the Court, with the accused paying the settlement amount.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 43 dated 2.6.2011 under Section 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM M-22568 of 2012

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 22568 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 15, 2013.

¶5

Charanjit Singh

¶6

..........PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.........RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Petitioner in person with Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate.

¶12

Mr. Deepak Garg, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. H.S. Bedi Advocate.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.43 dated 2.6.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar Mohali and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2, having been entered between the parties.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶18

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature and the same has

¶19

CRM M-22568 of 2012

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

since been settled due to intervention of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. It is also contended that parties have already got divorce by mutual consent pursuant to that compromise.

¶22

Respondent No.2 – complainant also appeared in person with her counsel and admitted the factum of compromise. An amount of 1,25,000 has been paid today by the petitioner to respondent No.2. It has been stated that entire amount of 5,50,000 has been received by respondent No.2 as per settlement.

¶23

In appropriate cases FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab , 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 .

¶24

Since the dispute was matrimonial in nature which has been settled, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 43 dated 2.6.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar Mohali alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioner Charanjit Singh is, hereby, quashed.

¶25

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 15, 2013. JUDGE Sachin M.

¶26

CRM M-22568 of 2012 - 3 -

Charanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Singh 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

Vikram @ Gandhi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Lucky and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurbinder Singh @ Shinda Vs State of Punjab

Kasamdin Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jatinder Singh Dua Vs Ut of Chandigarh