Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Sapra And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 May, 2013

Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi

Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                     CRM-M-6166-2013 (O&M)
                   Date of Decision: May 23, 2013

Narinder Sapra and others
                                                         ...Petitioners
                               Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:    Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

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

            Mr. D.S. Nigha, Advocate,
            for respondent No. 2.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 120, dated 13.10.2012, under Sections 323 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

2. Vide order dated 22.2.2013, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, 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 order dated 22.3.2013, the affected parties i.e. all the four petitioners and respondent No. 2- complainant did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, and suffered their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The report has also been received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, in that regard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have resolved their all disputes and effected a compromise. He further submits that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of divorce by a decree of mutual consent, has also been presented before the learned District Judge, in which first motion has already been issued and the next date before the said Court is fixed for 18.7.2013, for second motion. He further submits that all the conditions of the compromise have been materialized.

4. Learned counsel for the State on instructions of HC Baldev Singh of Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala, fairly concedes that the private parties have resolved their matrimonial disputes by effecting a compromise. He further submits that there are four accused and all of them are petitioners here in this petition. He has also gone through the copies of the statements and the report sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, 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.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant has also toed the lines of the learned counsel for the State and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. He concedes the fact that respondent No. 2 did appear before the learned Court below and suffered her statement with regard to the compromise.

6. Heard.

7. The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. The husband and the wife have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise. Even a divorce petition in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has also been presented before the learned District Judge, Kapurthala, wherein first motion has already been issued and the case is pending for second motion. Respondent No. 2-complainant has already suffered her statement before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, with regard to the compromise. Even her counsel has also admitted the factum of the compromise. Learned counsel for the State has also verified the factum of the compromise. 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 23, 2013            JUDGE
Pkapoor