Quashed

Jagjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2016CRM-M/18650/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC following a mutual divorce petition and a Rs. 25 lacs settlement between the parties, holding no useful purpose would be served in continuing litigation after voluntary compromise.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 148 dated 11.06.2015 and all consequential proceedings registered against petitioners are quashed.

Jagjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

GAURAV ARORA 2016.11.22 11:25 1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-18650 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-18650 of 2016 Date of decision : 18.11.2016

¶5

Jagjit Singh and anr.

¶6

......Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Punjab and anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. A.P.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶15

Quashing of FIR No. 148 dated 11.06.2015 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Kapurthala City, District Kapurthala, is being sought on the basis of mututal divorce filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶16

Respondent No. 2 got married to petitioner No. 1 . Due to temperamental differences, both the parties could not live together as husband and wife. The relationship between them became strained and thereafter, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners on account of bringing less dowry and harassment caused by the petitioners.

¶17

However, the matter has now been duly compromised, in view of the statement given by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2016 (Annexure P-3 and P-4) in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (P-2) whereby petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25 lacs as complete settlement against all her claims with regard to the

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-18650 of 2016

¶19

¶20

marriage.

¶21

In compliance of order dated 17.10.2016, report dated 08.11.2016 of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, has been received in this regard. As per report, statement of parties have been recorded. Complainant stated that the matter stands compromised between the parties and she does not want to proceed further against the accused and has no objection, if the present F.I.R be quashed against the petitioners. The compromise has been entered voluntarily. To the same effect is the statement given by the petitioner No. 1.

¶22

Consequently, in view of the status report dated 08.11.2016 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 , no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

¶23

Accordingly, FIR No. 148 dated 11.06.2015 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Kapurthala City, District Kapurthala, is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

¶24

The petition stands disposed of.

¶25

18.11.2016 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

Jagjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjit Singh and Anr. 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

Jaswinder Kumar @ Paali Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kulwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kinnu and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagraj Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.