Criminal Misc. No. M- 10516 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No. M- 10516 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 22, 2017
Rishi Kumar and others …..Petitioners
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. J.K. Khetarpal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Respondent No.2 – Sweety Sharma in person.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 01 dated
Sangrur 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., petitioner No.1.
With the intervention of respectables and relatives, a compromise has been
arrived at between the parties. The parties have agreed to bury the hatchet
and live with each other. The present petition has been filed on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
It is informed that respondent No. 2 is living together with her
husband – petitioner No. 1 at their matrimonial home. Petitioner No. 1 as
well as respondent No. 2, duly identified by ASI Rajinder Singh, are present
in Court. They reiterated that both of them are living together in a peaceful
manner in their matrimonial home.
This Court on 16.05.2017 directed the parties to appear before
learned Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in respect to the
1 of 3
29-09-2017 00:47:57 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 10516 of 2017 (OM) 2
above-mentioned compromise. Learned 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 Illaqa Magistrate 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 16.05.2017, the parties appeared before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur and their statements were
recorded on 08.07.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been
amicably resolved with the intervention of respectables and she has resumed
co-habitation with her husband. Respondent No.2 stated that she has no
objection to the quashing of the abovesaid FIR qua the petitioners.
Statements of the petitioners in respect to the compromise were also
As per report dated 17.07.2017 received from the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, it is opined that the compromise between the
parties is genuine, voluntary, arrived at out of their own free will, without
any pressure, coercion and undue influence. None of the petitioners are
reported to be the proclaimed offender. Statements of the parties are
appended alongwith the said report.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Rajinder Singh, 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.
2 of 3
29-09-2017 00:47:58 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 10516 of 2017 (OM) 3
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
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. 01 dated 05.01.2016
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.
September 22, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
29-09-2017 00:47:58 :::