The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed an FIR registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC sections due to a genuine compromise between parties, following principles laid down in Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh judgments.
Quashing of FIR No. 113 and all consequent proceedings qua the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Crl. Misc. No. M-17059 of 2018
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-17059 of 2018 Date of Decision: 26.9.2018
Gaurav and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Arun Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
None for respondents No. 2 and 3.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J (ORAL)
The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 113 dated 7.12.2017 registered under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 354-D, 406, 506 IPC, Women Police Station, Palwal, Haryana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Report has been received from the trial Court after statements of the parties were recorded regarding the compromise. The trial Court has reported that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. The trial Court has also sent the statements of the parties in original.
Learned counsel for the State on instructions submits that the
petitioners along with three other persons are the only accused and GURPREET SINGH 2018.09.28 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-17059 of 2018 -2-
respondents No. 2 and 3 are the only aggrieved persons in this FIR.
No useful purpose would be served to keep the FIR pending.
In view of the statements and report of the trial Court and the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 , approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the instant petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR and all consequent proceedings conducted on the basis thereof are quashed qua the petitioners.
Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE
September 26, 2018 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No
GURPREET SINGH 2018.09.28 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and consequent proceedings under dowry and IPC sections should be quashed upon a genuine compromise.
Whether the trial Court’s report on the genuineness of the compromise validates the quashing petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶22
Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶22
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gaurav and others
State of Haryana
Respondents No. 2 and 3
Anita Chaudhry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
