Allowed

Bhagyajit Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2018CRM-M/15791/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC citing a compromise between the marital parties. The court noted the receipt of a settlement amount and a report confirming the agreement's genuineness, allowing the quashing of proceedings on the grounds that continuing prosecution would be futile.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 41 dated 24.05.2017 under Section 498-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioner.

Bhagyajit Singh Vs Union Territory… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRM-M-15791-2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-15791-2018 Date of decision: 02.11.2018

Bhagyajit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory, Chandigarh and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶11

Present: Mr.Bhupinder Banga, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate, for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, APP for U.T. Chandigarh.

¶13

Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶16

This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 41 dated 24.05.2017 under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶17

The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant/respondent No.2 on 10.05.2015 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock no child was born. However, due to

¶18

SATYAWAN 2018.11.12 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-15791-2018

¶20

¶21

temperamental differences between the husband and wife, matrimonial dispute arose and the aforesaid FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant/respondent No.2. However, now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. A settlement /agreement has been entered into between the parties, a copy thereof is annexed with the petition.

¶22

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, 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.

¶23

In terms of the said compromise, a demand draft for a sum of ` 7,35,000/- in the name of the complainant/respondent No.2, has been handed over to learned counsel for respondent No.2 today in Court.

¶24

Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate, for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, APP for U.T. Chandigarh, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 admit to 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.

¶25

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

¶26

SATYAWAN 2018.11.12 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-15791-2018

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

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 Narinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , this petition is allowed, FIR No. 41 dated 24.05.2017 under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the petitioner.

¶31

The petition stands disposed of.

¶32

02.11.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes. Whether reportable No.

¶33

SATYAWAN 2018.11.12 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Bhagyajit Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagyajit Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh and Another

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

Pawan Kumar Ghai and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhagyajit Singh Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others

Arti Vs Varun Kumar

Pooja Nangia Vs Hunny Nangia @ Yash Nangia