Bira Ram Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 23 August, 2017

Criminal Misc. M- No. 27807 of 2016 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. M- No. 27807 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : August 23, 2017

Bira Ram and another …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

***

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.14 dated

10.06.2011 under Sections 498A, 109 IPC at Police Station Women

Bathinda, District Bathinda 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. The complainant’s

husband is not a party to this petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for

the petitioners that the petitioners are not in touch with their son i.e.

complainant’s husband. The matter has, however, been amicably resolved

with respondent No. 2. With the intervention of respectables and relatives, a

1 of 4
01-09-2017 11:46:03 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 27807 of 2016 (OM) 2

compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the terms of which

were reduced into writing on 01.07.2016 (Annexure P-2). The present

petition has been filed on the basis of this compromise.

This Court on 26.05.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court for recording their statements in respect to the above-

mentioned compromise. Learned trial court 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 was also directed to

intimate whether any of the petitioners 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 26.05.2017, the parties appeared before

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda and their statements

were recorded on 27.07.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that she was married

to co-accused Ajay on 29.01.2007. The matter has been amicably settled.

The settlement has been arrived at out of her own free will, without any

kind of pressure. It is stated by respondent No. 2 that she has received a sum

of `50,000/- from the accused and she has no other claim against them. It is

categorically stated that she does not have objection, in case the FIR

against the accused petitioners is quashed. Statements of the petitioners in

respect to the compromise were also recorded.

As per report dated 27.07.2017 received from the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda it is opined that the compromise

between the parties is genuine, voluntary, arrived at out of their own free

2 of 4
01-09-2017 11:46:04 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 27807 of 2016 (OM) 3

will, coercion or undue influence. 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

the accused 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.

It has been held by this Court in Parambir Singh Gill vs.

Malkiat Kaur 2010 (1) CRCR (Criminal) 256 that the FIR can be quashed

qua some of the accused persons.

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”.

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

3 of 4
01-09-2017 11:46:04 :::
Criminal Misc. M- No. 27807 of 2016 (OM) 4

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.14 dated 10.06.2011

under Sections 498A, 109 IPC at Police Station Women Bathinda, District

Bathinda alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed qua

the petitioners.

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)
August 23, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
01-09-2017 11:46:04 :::

Leave a Comment

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