Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vivek Bhanot And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 March, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-35012 of 2011
.....
Date of decision:5.3.2012
Vivek Bhanot and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
.....
Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
.....
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral):
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.106 dated 19.10.2009 under Sections 307, 354, 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, (Section 406, IPC, added later on), registered at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the State submits that after investigation the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.
On 3.2.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to Cr. Misc. No.M-35012 of 2011 [2] appear before the learned trial Court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The learned trial Court was also directed to submit its report in that regard.
In compliance of the above, the parties did appear before the learned trial Court and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The status report has also been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. A perusal of the same would reveal that Neeru Sharma-complainant/respondent No.2 stated that she had compromised the matter with the petitioners and did not want to pursue with the criminal case. She further stated that she had no objection if the impugned FIR and the other cases are quashed. Statements of the petitioners were also recorded.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh, Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana, admits the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR arising from the matrimonial dispute is quashed.
Heard.
The impugned FIR has originated on account of a matrimonial dispute and the same has amicably been settled and a compromise has been effected between respondent No.2 and the petitioners. The respective parties have already got recorded their statements before the learned Area Magistrate with regard to the compromise. Neeru Sharma had stated before Cr. Misc. No.M-35012 of 2011 [3] the Area Magistrate that she had no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that on account of the compromise a petition for divorce in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The initial statement has also been recorded by the learned District Judge in that petition. The continuation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the impugned FIR would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.
Keeping in view the factum of the compromise and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Cr.) 888, this petition is allowed and FIR No.106 dated 19.10.2009, under Sections 307, 354, 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, (Section 406, IPC, added later on), registered at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
March 5, 2012. (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge *hsp*