Suman Sharma And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 10 August, 2017

CRM-M-12442-2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-12442-2017
Date of Decision: 10.08.2017

Suman Sharma others …Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab Another …Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr. M. S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. J. C. Kaushal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2/complainant.

********

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 21.03.2015,

registered under Sections 498-A and 120-B of the IPC (Section 406 IPC

added later on), at Police Station Division No. 1, Pathankot and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated

31.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) entered into between the parties.

The marriage of the complainant was solemnized on

06.02.2013 with petitioner No. Sachin Sharma. However, due to

temperamental differences with the husband and his family members,

matrimonial dispute arose and the aforesaid FIR has been registered on the

statement of complainant/respondent No. 2-Sheetal Sharma. Now with the

intervention of respectable persons, the matrimonial dispute has been

1 of 3
12-08-2017 16:12:34 :::
CRM-M-12442-2017 -2-

amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a

compromise.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a

compromise, they were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for

getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. In

pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, stating that the compromise arrived at

between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and

the same appears to be genuine one. It is also reported that no PO

proceeding is pending against either of the parties.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions

from the Investigating Officer, and counsel for respondent No. 2 admit to

the factum of compromise and submits that in case the parties have indeed

settled their dispute, they would have no objection to the quashing of the

FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and gone

through the record.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a

loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between

the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After

considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that

both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal

prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate

conviction are bleak.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been

amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

2 of 3
12-08-2017 16:12:35 :::
CRM-M-12442-2017 -3-

Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR

(Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 51 dated 21.03.2015,

registered under Sections 498-A and 120-B of the IPC (Section 406 IPC

added later on), at Police Station Division No. 1, Pathankot and all

subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the

petitioners.

The petition stands disposed of.

(JAISHREE THAKUR)
August 10, 2017 JUDGE
Ansari

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

3 of 3
12-08-2017 16:12:35 :::

Leave a Comment

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