Criminal Misc. No.M- 23197 of 2015 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No.M- 23197 of 2015 (OM)
Date of decision : November 24, 2017
Malkeet Singh and others …..Petitioners
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 48 dated
Station Sri Muktsar Sahib 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 instance of respondent
No.2 due to matrimonial discord with her husband i.e., petitioner No.1. A
compromise was arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre of this Court, the terms of which were reduced into
writing on 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the parties
submit that during the pendency of the present petition a fresh compromise
(Annexure P-5) was arrived at between the parties on 09.05.2017. Quashing
of the abovesaid FIR is sought on the basis of this compromise.
1 of 4
28-11-2017 00:51:40 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 23197 of 2015 (OM) 2
It is informed that petition under Sections 13B of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 filed by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has since
been allowed on 21.11.2017. The entire settled amount between the parties
has been received by respondent No. 2.
This Court on 28.07.2017 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 28.07.2017, the parties appeared before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malout and their statements were
recorded on 17.08.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been
amicably resolved by her with all the accused petitioners as reflected in
settlement Ex. C1. The compromise, it is stated, has been effected out of her
own free will, without any coercion, fraud or misrepresentation. 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 recorded.
As per report dated 06.09.2017 received from the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malout, it is opined that the compromise df
between the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any coercion or undue
influence. None of the petitioners is reported to be a proclaimed offender.
2 of 4
28-11-2017 00:51:41 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 23197 of 2015 (OM) 3
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.
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
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. 48 dated 10.07.2014
Muktsar Sahib alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby,
3 of 4
28-11-2017 00:51:41 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 23197 of 2015 (OM) 4
November 24, 2017 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
28-11-2017 00:51:41 :::