Sandeep Singh Bhanver vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 July, 2017

CRM No.M-10238 of 2016 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 10238 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: July 27 , 2017.

Sandeep Singh Bhanver …… PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and another …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. BPS Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Karambir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. M.K.Garg, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.16 dated

03.03.2016 under Sections 323/506/498A IPC registered at Police Station PAU,

Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis

of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

The abovesaid FIR was registered at the behest of respondent No.2

due to matrimonial discord with her husband i.e., the petitioner. With the

intervention of respectables and relatives, a compromise was arrived at between

the parties, the terms of which were reduced into writing on 11.03.2016

(Annexure P2). The petitioner and respondent No.2 had initially decided to

1 of 4
05-08-2017 07:12:44 :::
CRM No.M-10238 of 2016 [2]

resume matrimonial ties and live together as mentioned in the compromise dated

11.03.2016, Annexure P2. However during the pendency of this petition, it was

noted that the settlement between the parties no longer subsisted. However the

parties in the interregnum have amicably resolved the entire dispute between

themselves. A fresh compromise-cum-agreement dated 04.04.2017, Annexure P8

has been drawn up. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have decided to part

ways. It is thus submitted that this petition be allowed on the basis of the

READ  Tarkeshwar Sahu vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 29 September, 2006

subsequent compromise dated 04.04.2017 as the parties wish to live in peace and

harmony and put an end to the acrimony between them.

This Court on 10.05.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in respect to

the above-mentioned compromise. Liberty was afforded to the petitioner as well

as respondent No.2 to record their statements through their Special Power of

Attorney holders.

Learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate was directed to submit a report

regarding the genuineness of the compromise, as to whether it has been arrived at

out of the free will and volition of the parties without any coercion, fear or undue

influence. Learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to intimate

whether any of the accused are absconding/proclaimed offenders and whether

any other case is pending against them. Information was sought as to whether all

affected persons are a party to the settlement.

Pursuant to order dated 10.05.2017, the parties appeared before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana and their statements were

recorded on 18.07.2017 and 20.07.2017. It is stated by Dr. Ashwani Sharma,

father and Special Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2 that the matter

2 of 4
05-08-2017 07:12:46 :::
CRM No.M-10238 of 2016 [3]

has been amicably resolved between the parties. The settlement has been arrived

at voluntarily, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. It is stated that

respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the abovesaid FIR qua the

petitioner. Similarly, the statement of the petitioner through his father and

READ  Seema Bansal vs Mayank Bansal on 16 October, 2008

Special Power of Attorney holder – Ranjit Singh Bhawar, in respect to the

settlement was recorded.

As per report dated 21.07.2017 received from the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana it is opined that the compromise between the

parties is genuine and voluntary, arrived at without any coercion or undue

influence. The petitioner, it is reported, is not a proclaimed offender. Statements

of the parties are appended alongwith the said report.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the

factum of settlement between the parties. It is reiterated that respondent No.2

has no objection to the quashing of the abovementioned FIR against all the

petitioners.

Learned counsel for the State submits that as the abovesaid FIR

arises out of a matrimonial dispute, the State has no objection to the quashing of

this FIR on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties.

In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and

another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this Court has

observed as under:-

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of
harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the
power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used to
enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social
amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”.

3 of 4
05-08-2017 07:12:46 :::
CRM No.M-10238 of 2016 [4]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of

Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 has observed that it becomes the duty of the Court

to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be

in the interest of justice to quash the abovesaid FIR as no useful purpose would

be served by continuance of the present proceedings. It will merely lead to

wastage of precious time of the court and would be an exercise in futility.

This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No.16 dated 03.03.2016

under Sections 323/506/498A IPC registered at Police Station PAU, Ludhiana

alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file necessary

application for revival of the proceedings in the above said FIR, in case the terms

and conditions of settlement between the parties are not adhered to by the

petitioner(s) or it is found that the settlement was a mere ruse to have the

aforesaid FIR quashed.

( LISA GILL )
July 27 , 2017. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
05-08-2017 07:12:46 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *