Allowed

Babita Kumari @ Vinita v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2013CRM-M/25575/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC. Quashing an FIR under sections 406, 498-A, and 34 IPC, the Court held that a just and fair compromise, recorded by a Judicial Magistrate without coercion, warranted quashing the proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 101 dated 27.5.2004 P.S. Hariana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.

Babita Kumari @ Vinita Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-25575 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-25575 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 9^th , 2013

¶5

Babita Kumari alias Vinita

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

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. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Anmol Grewal. A. A.G., Punjab, for the State.

¶14

Mr. G.S.Rawat, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Babita Kumari alias Vinita, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 27.5.2004 registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise.

¶17

While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 20.09.2012 for getting their

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-25575 of 2012

¶19

¶20

statements recorded in support of the compromise. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur has sent his report in this regard through learned District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. He has reported that he had recorded the statements of the parties, who have supported the factum of compromise. He has concluded his report by submitting that the parties have already settled their grievances amicably and that the compromise arrived at between them through the intervention of the respectable persons and relatives, is without any pressure or coercion from anyone.

¶21

The contested decisions made by the courts leave scars on the litigants who lose the battle. In a decision based on compromise, none is a loser and, therefore, none suffers any such scar. Compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute but also restores tranquility in the society. The compromise (Annexure P3) appears to be just and fair, brought about without there being any pressure on the wife, effect of which is of advancing the cause of justice. In view of the ratio of decision of this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 , a case regarding noncompoundable matrimonial offence can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶22

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 any pressure upon any one and that the same would be securing the ends of justice, I accept the petition and quash FIR No.101 dated 27.5.2004 registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur

¶23

Crl. Misc. No.M-25575 of 2012

¶24

¶25

(Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A read with section 34 IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner.

¶26

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶27

January 9^th , 2013 som

Babita Kumari @ Vinita v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Kumari @ Vinita 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

Ut of Chandigarh Vs Madan Lal

Satpal Garg & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurbax Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dalip Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Karamjeet Singh @ Laddi Vs State of Punjab