Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amarjeet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 May, 2013

Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi

Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                      CRM-M-12592-2013 (O&M)

                   Date of Decision: May 24, 2013

Amarjeet Singh and others

                                                          ...Petitioners

                                Versus

State of Punjab and another

                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:    Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab,
            for respondent No. 1.

            Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate,
            for respondent No. 2.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 50, dated 22.3.2013, under Sections 120-B, 323, 406, 498-A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, City, Sunam, District Sangrur, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

2. Vide order dated 23.4.2013, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to send a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements on or before the date fixed by this Court.

3. In compliance of the above, all the four petitioners, CRM-M-12592-2013 (O&M) 2 namely, Amarjeet Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur, Sarabjeet Kaur and Gurbachan Singh, as well as respondent No. 2-complainant, Mandeep Kaur, did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, has sent copies of the statement of respondent No. 2- complainant and a joint statement of the petitioners. Respondent No. 2-complainant, Mandeep Kaur, suffered the following statement:-

" I have compromised the matter voluntarily with accused Amarjit Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur, Sarbjit Kaur and Gurbachan Singh in F.I.R. No. 50 dated 22.03.2013, Police Station, City, Sunam, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 120-B IPC without any pressure or coercion, which is Ex. CX. I do not want to proceed further with the present case against the accused. I and my husband have already filed divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending at Sunam. The copy of the petition is Mark A, copy of F.I.R. is Mark B. I have no objection, if the F.I.R. is quashed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court."

4. The petitioners-accused suffered the following joint statement:-

" We have compromised the matter voluntarily with complainant Mandeep Kaur without any pressure or coercion, Compromise is Ex. CX. Divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed. The statement given by Mandeep Kaur today in the Court is also correct."

5. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, reveals that the affected parties had also produced the compromise deed as Ex. CX. before the said Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to incompatible behaviour, the private respondents could not pull on well and, as such, due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, they have resolved their all disputes and effected a compromise (Ex. CX). He further submits that in consonance with the compromise, the husband and wife have decided to part with the company of each other. He further submits that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent, has been presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction, in which first motion has already been issued and the said case is now fixed for 10.10.2013, for second motion. He further submits that most of the terms and conditions of the compromise have been materialized.

7. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from HC Maan Singh of Police Station, City, Sunam, District Sangrur, very fairly concedes the factum of the compromise between the private parties. He has also gone through the copies of the statements and the report sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed in view of the compromise effected between the private parties.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant, Mandeep Kaur (who is also present in the Court), has also toed the lines of the learned counsel for the State and has no objection if the CRM-M-12592-2013 (O&M) 4 impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

9. Heard.

10. The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Better sense has prevailed and with the intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the private parties have sorted out their disputes. The husband and wife have decided to part with their company by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent and a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in that regard has already been filed, in which the first motion has been issued and now the case is fixed for 10.10.2013, for second motion. Most of the terms and conditions of the compromise have already been materialized. The affected parties have suffered their respective statements with regard to the compromise and even a copy of the compromise deed (Ex. CX) was also produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur . Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant have also admitted the factum of the compromise. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, reveals that the compromise so effected was voluntary one and was without any coercion or pressure. The pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak.

                                        (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
May 24, 2013                                     JUDGE
Pkapoor