Punjab-Haryana High Court
Komal Singh Alias Kewal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 May, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-12870 of 2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-12870 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 24th , 2012
Komal Singh alias Kewal Singh and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. P.S.Grewal, DAG, Punjab,
for the State
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Four petitioners, namely Komal Singh alias Kewal Singh, Amarjit Kaur, Mandeep Kaur and Nirmal Singh have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 38 dated 22.10.2011 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda District Bathinda for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 109 of Indian Penal Code alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
On notice, besides learned State counsel, Navjot Kaur, Crl. Misc. No.M-12870 of 2012 2 ..
respondent No. 2 has also appeared. She is represented by her counsel Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate. She has filed reply to the petition admitting the contents thereof and asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties. The detailed terms of compromise between the parties are there in Annexure P/2, the compromise. On being questioned, respondent no. 2 has stated that she would receive a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs from the petitioner No.1 at the time of second motion stage of the divorce petition filed by them and that apart from that amount, she has received all what was due to her under the compromise.
In a matrimonial dispute, even if the offence is non- compoundable, the FIR and the consequent proceedings could be quashed as has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426. What has to be kept in mind while allowing quashing of the FIR is that the settlement/compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit . Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is free from undue pressure. Once it is found that the compromise is just and fair and is not brought about by undue pressure of one party on the other, then the court has to see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or that it would prevent abuse of process of law.
Questioning the complainant, the court is satisfied that by this compromise all the differences between the parties have been sorted out. No cause of any friction is left between them and, therefore, this compromise can certainly be said to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears to the court suggestive of pressure, much Crl. Misc. No.M-12870 of 2012 3 ..
less undue pressure on the complainant for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to have been derived by any party in the matter of compromise. Expert legal advice of the counsel of her choice is also available to respondent No. 2.
Thus, keeping in view the fact that the parties have settled the dispute and that the settlement between them is just and fair, brought about without undue pressure from any one and that the same would be securing the ends of justice, I accept the petition and quash FIR No. 38 dated 22.10.2011 registered at Police Women Cell, Bathinda District Bathinda for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 109 IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE May 24th , 2012 som