207.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-51292-2018
Date of decision:04.07.2019

JAGMOHAN SINGH AND ANR … Petitioners

versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR …. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
—-

Present: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.

—-

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No.49 dated 15.03.2013 registered under

Sections 498-A, Section120-B of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar (Annexure

P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondent No.2-

complainant was married with petitioner No.1 on 20.02.2007 and out of this

wedlock, one girl Kudratpreet Kaur was born on 08.08.2009. Since there

were certain temperamental differences between the parties, they could not

pull well and it is for this reason, the parties remained in litigation including

the present FIR. Apart from filing the present FIR, respondent No.2 has filed

a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar wherein the matter was compromised

between the parties.

1 of 6
14-07-2019 04:02:59 :::
CRM-M-51292-2018 -2-

Mr. Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that

the aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of respondent No.2 just to

pressurize and blackmail the family members of the petitioners. Beside

lodging the present FIR, respondent No.2 has also filed a petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Amritsar. Petitioner No.1 has also filed a petition seeking divorce under

Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and a final decree of divorce has been

granted by the Court at Amritsar on 02.12.2015.

He refers to the compromise entered between the parties dated

09.04.2018 (Annexure P-2). However, he submits that after getting the

compromise executed, the complainant has gone abroad. She has made a

statement dated 09.04.2018 before the JMIC, Amritsar, whereby

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were pending, admitting the very fact

of compromise between the parties. Moreover, pursuant to the aforesaid

statement, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent

No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn. Now since respondent No.2 is not

coming forward, the petitioner is suffering adversely. Respondent No.2

despite having compromised the matter is not coming forward in the case,

though she has been served through her brother Jasvir Singh, who is also not

coming forward to contest this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that after passing

of the decree of divorce, the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have

solemnized second marriage and are living happily.

Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of

Sarbjit Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Amritsar City,

on behalf of respondent No.1, which is taken on record. In the reply, the
2 of 6
14-07-2019 04:03:00 :::
CRM-M-51292-2018 -3-

very factum of compromise dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) has been

admitted between the parties. He refers to para 5 of the reply which reads as

under:-

“5. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioners
have contended that Final Decree of Divorce between the
petitioner No.1 Jagmohan Singh and respondent No.2,
Gurwinder Kaur was granted on 02.12.2015 by the Court
at Amritsar and a mutual compromise was also effected
on 09.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) between them, wherein it
was decided that the respondent No.2, Gurwinder Kaur
shall take all necessary steps to support the petitioners,
right from Lower Courts upto Hon’ble High Court in
getting the FIR in question quashed. It is submitted that
the challan of the present case was presented against the
accused/petitioners on 26/11/2013, whereas, the Decree
of Divorce is alleged to be granted on 02.12.2015 and the
compromise is alleged to be effected on 09/04/2018,
which have not been produced before the Ld. Trial Court
by the parties and no remedy has been availed on the
behalf of the same from the Ld. Trial Court by the
parties. As such, both these proceedings are not in
knowledge of the Investigating and Prosecution Agency.
Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.”

The statement made by respondent No.2 before the learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, on 09.04.2018 in pending

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

“Stated that my marriage was solemnized with
Jagmohan on 20.02.2007 and out of this wedlock a
daughter namely Kudratpreet Kaur born on 08.08.2009
after the marriage we are living separate since
07.07.2012. From the time of our separation minor

3 of 6
14-07-2019 04:03:00 :::
CRM-M-51292-2018 -4-

daughter Kudratpreet Kaur is living under my care and
custody. Respondent Jagmohan Singh filed a Petition
under section 13 of HMA which was decreed ex-parte in
his favour by the court of Sh. Munish Arora ADJ
Amritsar vide judgment dated 02.12.2015. At that time
the minor daughter was also living with me. I have filed
this Petition under Sectionsection 125 of Cr.P.C. for myself and
on behalf of my daughter and also registered a case vide
FIR No.49 dated 15.03.2013 under Sectionsection 498A/Section120-B
of IPC, P.S. Sadar Amritsar against the Respondent and
others, which is pending in the court of Ms. Ravi Inder
Kaur ACJM, Amritsar. The Respondent shall file a
Petition under Sectionsection 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the
above said case as per our compromise. The compromise
is Ex.PX. I will appear in the court to make statement in
respect to the above said quashing proceedings. The
Respondent shall not claim the custody of minor daughter
Kudratpreet Kaur from me in future throughout his life.
He will not file any type of claim regarding the custody of
minor daughter Kudratpreet Kaur in any competent court
of law. I will not file any civil or criminal case against
Gurwinder Kaur regarding this marriage. I will not file
any case regarding maintenance for and on behalf of
myself and my minor daughter. I will not file any case
regarding the property of Respondent Jagmohan Singh. I
will not claim any share in the property of Respondent
Jagmohan Singh for me and on behalf of minor daughter
Kudratpreet Kaur.”

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that after the

compromise having been arrived at between the parties, the complainant has

gone abroad and now, no one is pursuing the said litigation. Moreover,

decree of divorce has already been passed in favour of the petitioner.

4 of 6
14-07-2019 04:03:00 :::
CRM-M-51292-2018 -5-

It has been brought to the notice of the court that the parties

have remarried. Therefore, this Court finds that pendency of the present FIR

is not going to yield any result, as the complainant has already suffered a

statement before the learned Magistrate admitting the very compromise

between the parties and she has specifically stated that she will appear in the

court to make statement in respect of the proceedings including quashing of

the FIR. Thus, in case the FIR in question is not quashed, the very purpose

of the compromise would be a nullity. Moreover in the absence of

complainant, she being in abroad, her brother has been served in the case

and he has also not opted to contest this petition.

Accordingly, considering the fact that the matter has already

been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose would be served

to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private

Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu and others-2014 (4) RCR (Criminal)

206 has held that the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature,

or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered

into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of

conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section

482 Cr.P.C. read with SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution.

Thus, following the principles laid down by the Full Bench

judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of

Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others

(2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in the light of Gold Quest International Private

Limited’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.49 dated
5 of 6
14-07-2019 04:03:00 :::
CRM-M-51292-2018 -6-

15.03.2013 registered under Sections 498-A, Section120-B of IPC at Police Station

Sadar, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated

09.04.2018 (Annexure P-2).

(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
04.07.2019
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No

6 of 6
14-07-2019 04:03:00 :::