Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharambir Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 September, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl.Misc.No.M-9152 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-9152 of 2011
Date of Decision : 06.09.2013
Dharambir Singh & others ........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr.Vikas Bhal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.P.S.Hundal, AAG Punjab.
******
Daya Chaudhary, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, namely Dharambir Singh, Harjit Singh, Manjit Kaur, Karnail Singh and Bagicha Singh, for quashing of FIR No.338 dated 16.12.2008, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Divn. No.5 Civil Line, District Ludhiana.
During the pendency of this petition, a compromise was effected between the parties. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are brother-in-laws, petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is father- in-law of complainant-respondent No.2. As per directions issued by this Court on 05.08.2013, parties were directed to appear before trial Court for recording their statements with regard to the compromise and trial Court was directed to send a report after Anil Kumar 2013.09.11 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.Misc.No.M-9152 of 2011 2 recording of the statements of the parties. In compliance of direction issued by this Court on 05.08.2013, parties appeared before trial Court and their statements were recorded. A report in this regard has been sent by the trial Court along with statements of the parties, which are taken on record. It has been mentioned in the report that petitioners as well as complainant appeared before the trial Court and their statements were recorded. On perusal of the statements of the parties, the trial Court is of the opinion that the statements of the parties were without any threat, pressure, undue influence and coercion in any manner and compromise is valid. It has also been mentioned that there is no P.O. proceedings against the parties. In the statement of complainant-Suman, it has been stated that she has received an amount of `5,50,000/-(Rupees Five Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) and the said amount is for her past, present and future maintenance and she will not agitate any claim to the property of the petitioners in view of the compromise. It has also been stated that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR.
Since it is a dispute of matrimonial nature and during the pendency of the proceedings a compromise was effected between the parties and the statements of petitioners as well as complainant were recorded by the trial Court wherein the factum of compromise has been mentioned. The complainant- Suman has specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection if, the present FIR is quashed registered against the petitioners.
Anil Kumar 2013.09.11 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.Misc.No.M-9152 of 2011 3
In view of the compromise effected between the parties there is no justification to prolong the litigation when complainant has no objection for quashing of the FIR. Otherwise, also in case the proceedings are continued in future, no purpose would be served as complainant is not going to support the case of prosecution and continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise. It would be a mere formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Moreover, the compromise between the parties is in the interest of both the sides and complainant has shown her willingness not to pursue a petition against the petitioners as she has received a lump sum amount and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR.
Accordingly, in view of the fact as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.338 dated 16.12.2008, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Divn. No.5 Civil Line, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, qua the petitioners Dharambir Singh-Petitioner No.1, Harjit Singh-Petitioner No.2, Manjit Kaur-Petitioner No.3, Karnail Singh-Petitioner No.4 and Bagicha Singh-Petitioner No.5 are hereby quashed.
06.09.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
anil JUDGE
Anil Kumar
2013.09.11 13:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document