Criminal Misc. No. M- 39777 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 39777 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : June 01, 2018
Manjot Singh and others …..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. D.S. Sukarchakia, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
LISA GILL, J.
CRM-20260-2018
Prayer in the application is for preponement of the date of
hearing of the case.
Report of the learned trial Court in respect to the compromise
between the parties, it is submitted, has been attached with this file.
Notice of the application.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent
No. 2.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. D.S. Sukarchakia, DAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Advance copies
of the application have already been supplied. Another copy of the
application is supplied to learned counsel for the State. No objection has
been raised by learned counsel for the respondents to the preponment to the
hearing of this case from 09.08.2018.
1 of 4
11-06-2018 01:06:46 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 39777 of 2017 (OM) 2
Accordingly, hearing of the matter is preponed from
09.08.2018 for today itself.
Application is disposed of.
Criminal Misc. No. M- 39777 of 2017 (OM)
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 65
dated 04.07.2017 under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station
Women Patiala, District Patiala and all other consequential proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 03.08.2017
(Annexure P-2).
The abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance of respondent
No.2 due to matrimonial discord with her husband i.e., petitioner No.1.
It is informed that petition under Section 13B of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 filed by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has
since been allowed. Respondent No. 2 has received the entire settled amount
in terms of the agreement/settlement and has no objection to the quashing of
the aforesaid FIR.
This Court on 22.02.2018 directed the parties to appear before
learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in respect
to the above-mentioned compromise. Learned trial court/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 trial court/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.
2 of 4
11-06-2018 01:06:47 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 39777 of 2017 (OM) 3
Pursuant to order dated 22.02.2018, the parties appeared before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala and their statements were
recorded on 12.03.2018. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been
compromised by her with all the accused persons out of her own free will,
without any pressure, threat or coercion. Respondent No.2 stated that she
has no objection to the quashing of the abovesaid FIR qua all the
petitioners. Joint statement of all the petitioners in respect to the
compromise was also recorded. Statement of HC Manjinder Singh was
recorded to the effect that none of the petitioners are proclaimed offenders.
As per report dated 16.03.2018 received from the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala satisfaction is expressed that the
compromise between the parties is genuine, arrived at out of free will of the
parties, without any threat or pressure. None of the petitioners is reported to
be a proclaimed offender. 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 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.
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
3 of 4
11-06-2018 01:06:47 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 39777 of 2017 (OM) 4non 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. 65 dated 04.07.2017
under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station Women Patiala,
District Patiala alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby,
quashed.
(Lisa Gill)
June 01, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
11-06-2018 01:06:47 :::