Quashed

Gurpreet Singh & Other v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2016CRM-M/20339/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR regarding matrimonial disputes. The court relied on a judicial magistrate's report confirming a voluntary compromise between the parties and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. to conclude that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging litigation.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.10 dated 08.08.2013 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Gurpreet Singh & Other Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CRM-M-20339-2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-20339-2016 Date of Decision:- 19.10.2016

¶5

Gurpreet Singh and others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. A.P.S. Gill, A.A.G. Punjab Mr. G.C. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶15

Quashing of FIR No.10 dated 08.08.2013 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Mataur (Women Cell), District SAS Nagar, is being sought on the basis of compromise dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure P-2).

¶16

Respondent No. 2 got married to petitioner No. 1 on 23.01.2011. Due to temperamental differences, both the parties could not live together as husband and wife. The relationship between them became strain and thereafter, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners on

¶17

Naresh Kumaraccount of bringing less dowry and harassment caused by the petitioners. 2016.10.22 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-20339-2016

¶19

¶20

However, the matter has now been duly compromised, vide compromise dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure P-2).

¶21

In compliance of order dated 03.06.2016, report of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Mohali, dated 19.07.2016 has been received. 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 statements given by the petitioners.

¶22

Consequently, in view of the report dated 19.07.2016 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.10 dated 08.08.2013 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Mataur (Women Cell), District SAS Nagar, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure P-2).

¶24

The present petition stands disposed of.

¶25

October 19, 2016 naresh.k

¶26

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
Whether reportable	No

¶28

Naresh Kumar 2016.10.22 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurpreet Singh & Other v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh & Other v. State of Punjab & 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

Tarun Bagga Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kundan @ Kundan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vikas Madan Vs State of Punjab and Another

Vishal Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Parmit Vs State of Haryana