Allowed

Pranshu Sood v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2017CRM-M/18652/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and proceedings under IPC Sections 406 and 498-A. The court held that as the matrimonial dispute was amicably settled via a compromise, continued prosecution was futile, and the case should be quashed q.a. the petitioner citing Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 29 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed qua the petitioners.

Pranshu Sood Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-18652-2017 Date of decision: 27.10.2017

Pranshu Sood

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶10

Present:Mr.Jasraj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

Ms. Bhanvi Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.(ORAL)

¶14

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 29 dated 04.03.2017, under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner got married with respondent No.2 on 20.07.2015, which was a love marriage. A dispute arose between them due to their difference of opinion. Above referred FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties and a settlement/agreement (Annexure P- 2) has been prepared whereby they have decided to part their ways, apart Satyawan 2017.10.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-18652-2017

¶17

-2-

¶18

from other terms and conditions detailed therein.

¶19

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report in has been received from the the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same appears to be genuine one.

¶20

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, they would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶21

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

¶22

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, a 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 dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

¶23

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012

¶24

Satyawan 2017.10.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

CRM-M-18652-2017

¶26

-3-

¶27

(4) RCR (Cr.) 543 , this petition is allowed and FIR No. 29 dated 04.03.2017, under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the petitioners.

¶28

The petition stands disposed of.

¶29

27.10.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶30

Satyawan 2017.10.28 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Pranshu Sood v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranshu Sood 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

Sourabh Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Aman Sarwan Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rahul Phutela & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Anna Kanda & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Anurag Gahlawat Vs State of Haryana and Others