Allowed

Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2014CRM-M/2930/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The petition allowed after finding that a genuine compromise had been reached between the matrimonial parties, resolving the dispute without coercion.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.82 dated 3.6.2012 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Ranjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-2930 of 2014

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:18.12.2014

¶5

Ranjit Singh and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. A.S. Klar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶14

Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the complainantrespondent No.2.

¶15

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 3.6.2012 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise/affidavit dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure-P.2).

¶17

The marriage of petitioner No.1 Ranjit Singh was solemnized with complainant-Darshana Rani on 28.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Cr. Misc. No.M-2930 of 2014

¶19

[2]

¶20

rituals. However, due to temperamental differences between the parties, matrimonial dispute arose and the above said FIR was registered for the above mentioned offences against the petitioners. Now with the intervention of respectable persons and elders of family, the matrimonial dispute has amicably been resolved as husband and wife have decided to part ways by filing petition seeking divorce by mutual consent and compromise (Annexure-P.2) has been entered into between the parties.

¶21

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka has sent her report dated 12.12.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Complainant Darshana Rani has stated that she has effected compromise with the accused-petitioners voluntarily with her free will, without any duress or pressure of any kind whatsoever and have received a lump-sum amount of `1,05,000/- as part of her permanent alimony from Ranjit Singh. She has no grudge left and she will have no objection if the FIR is quashed.

¶22

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainantrespondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their matrimonial dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down

¶23

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Cr. Misc. No.M-2930 of 2014

¶25

[3]

¶26

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 and have gone through the record.

¶28

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

¶29

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled and the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No.82 dated 3.6.2012 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar

¶30

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

Cr. Misc. No.M-2930 of 2014

¶32

[4]

¶33

Fazilka, District Fazilka and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

¶34

December 18, 2014.

¶35

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶36

hsp

¶37

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Balbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Dhaliwal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mukesh Tyagi Vs Vijay Singh Solanki

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Parwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.