Allowed

Jit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Mar 2017CRM-M/7837/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 168 under Section 498-A IPC and related orders after the prosecution and accused parties reached a compromise. An application to take a power of attorney on record was allowed, leading to the disposal of the petitions as the stationery and investigation were completed with the settlement.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 168 dated 28.09.2013 under Sections 498-A IPC and Order dated 28.07.2014 are quashed along with consequential proceedings. Annexure P-11 and P-12 are taken on record.

Jit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-7837 and 42210 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. Crl. Misc. No. M-7837 of 2014

¶5

Jit Kaur ....Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents

¶8

2. Crl. Misc. No. M-42210 of 2014 Lakhwinder Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents Date of decision : 03.03.2017

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present: Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner in both cases

¶11

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

¶12

Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in both cases

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶15

CRM No. 35663 of 2016 in CRM-M-42210 of 2014

¶16

Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶17

Accordingly, Annexure P-11 and P-12 are taken on record.

¶18

CRM-M-7837 and 42210 of 2014

¶19

This order shall dispose of the above two petitions as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions wherein prayer is for quashing of F.I.R No. 168 dated 28.09.2013, under Sections 498-A IPC,

¶20

GAURAV ARORA 2017.03.22 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-7837 and 42210 of 2014

¶23

registered at P.S. Shahkot, District Jalandhar and order dated 28.07.2014 (in CRM-M-42210 of 2014).

¶24

The above F.I.R was registered on the statement of complainant-Kamaljit Kaur who was married with Lakhwinder Singh on 29.06.2006 at Kapurthala. Parties were residing in England before marriage and they came to India to perform the marriage. Prior to the present marriage, complainant was earlier married and divorced in England itself. Out of the said wedlock, one son was born. On the complaint dated 04.06.2013 given by the complainant to DSP, Shahkot, the present F.I.R has been registered against the petitioners.

¶25

At the stage of investigation, the petitioner-Lakhwinder Singh was declared proclaimed offender on 28.07.2014 and thereafter during the pendency of the present petitions, the matter was compromised between the parties, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioners on 12.01.2017. As per Annexure P-11, respondent No. 2 has given power of attorney to her brother to get any mutation and give statement or affidavit in Court. He was authorized to make any compromise. Accordingly, her brother Ranjeet Kumar gave affidavit to the effect that he has been appointed as general power of attorney by his sister. He stated that the matter has been compromised between his sister and the accused persons i.e Lakhwinder Singh and Jit Kaur. The parties have left no grudge against each other. The compromise was without any pressure.

¶26

Thus, once the matter stands compromised between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, in view of

¶27

GAURAV ARORA 2017.03.22 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Crl. Misc. No. M-7837 and 42210 of 2014

¶29

-3-

¶30

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 ,

¶31

Consequently, in view of the compromise deed dated 14.09.2016, F.I.R No. 168 dated 28.09.2013, under Sections 498-A IPC, registered at P.S. Shahkot, District Jalandhar and order dated 28.07.2014, are quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

¶32

The petitions stand disposed of.

¶33

03.03.2017 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE

¶34

*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes*
*Whether reportable*	No

¶35

GAURAV ARORA 2017.03.22 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Jit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jit Kaur 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

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurmeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs Anita Kumari

Ashok Gupta Vs Mala Gupta

Sandeep Monga Vs Shweta Monga

Simarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.