Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Ganesh And Anr vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Others on 6 December, 2012
CRM NO. M-29789 OF 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-29789 OF 2012 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : 06.12.2012
Jai Ganesh and anr.
...Petitioners
versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and others.
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
Present : Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, APP
for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 - U.T. Chandigarh
Respondent No.3 in person
S.P. BANGARH, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.83 dated 17.04.2008 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, along with all subsequent proceedings arising, therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
Roopa-respondent No.3 got registered FIR No. 83 dated 17.04.2008 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Sector 31, Chandigarh, on the allegations that after her marriage with Jai Ganesh-petitioner No.1, the latter and his sister-in- law-petitioner No.2 started harassing her. They have demanded `.2.00 lacs and said that she will be allowed to live with them only if CRM NO. M-29789 OF 2012 (O&M) -2- she fulfills their demand. Petitioner No.1 (Jai Ganesh) left her at her native place on the pretext of demolition of residential house. She used to be beaten by the petitioners and another god sister of petitioner No.1 (Jai Ganesh). She also alleged that reason for her harassment is that petitioner No.1 (Jai Ganesh) is having illicit relations with his sister-in-law i.e petitioner No.2. She further stated that she has received a notice of divorce at the instance of petitioner No.1 (Jai Ganesh) from a Court at Tis Hazari, New Delhi. She has also been receiving threats.
On the basis of her complaint containing aforementioned allegations, FIR mentioned in the earlier part of this order was registered. Now, through, this instant petition, the petitioners who have been named as accused in the FIR have sought quashing, thereof.
Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. Report from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh with whom case of the present FIR in question is pending, was also sought.
Roopa-respondent No.3 has appeared in person. Her statement has been recorded, wherein, she stated that she has effected compromise with petitioners and she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. She has also identified her signature on her statement dated 10.10.2012 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, pursuant to the reference made by this Court with regard to the genuineness of the compromise deed (Annexure P-1), which was proved by the petitioners and respondent No.3 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh as CRM NO. M-29789 OF 2012 (O&M) -3- Ex.DX. Even, respondent No.3 has identified her signature on Ex.DX.
This is a matrimonial dispute. In view of the compromise, the case is not likely to result in conviction of the petitioners as respondent No.3, who is the author of the FIR which has been sought to be quashed, will not support her allegations levelled by her against the petitioners during trial. So, this compromise between petitioners and respondent No.3 is suffice for quashing the FIR in question. Even, learned counsel for U.T. Chandigarh, on instructions from SI Anil Kumar, Women Cell, Chandigarh, has not opposed the prayer of the petitioners for seeking quashing of the FIR in question. There is nothing on the record that the compromise is illegal.
It has been held by this Court in the case of, "Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others" 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that the Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
As already observed, the matrimonial dispute covered in FIR has been sought to be quashed. After the compromise, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 shall live in harmony and now they are residing together. Their harmonious company will bring CRM NO. M-29789 OF 2012 (O&M) -4- peace in the society, as also, this compromise shall put an end to the litigation covered in the FIR sought to be quashed.
Resultantly, petition is allowed; FIR No. 83 dated 17.04.2008 under Section 498-A IPC, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh and the resultant proceedings are quashed.
DECEMBER 06, 2012 (S.P. BANGARH) sham JUDGE