SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manpreet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 13 February, 2019

204+278.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

I. CRM-M-9800-2018
Date of decision:13.02.2019.

MANPREET SINGH … Petitioner

versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. …. Respondents

II. CRM-M-55955-2018

GURPARTAP SINGH AND ORS. … Petitioners

versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. …. Respondents

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

Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Major Singh, petitioner No.3 (in CRM-M-55955-2018) in
person.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate,
with respondent No.2-Jaspal Singh Jubbal in person.

—-

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M-9800-

2018 titled as Manpreet Singh Versus State of Haryana and another and

CRM-M-55955-2018 titled as Gurpartap Singh and others Versus State of

Haryana and another.

1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2019 12:18:48 :::
CRM-M-9800-2018 -2-

The complainant is Jaspal Singh Jubbal, whose daughter

Jasmine Jubbal was married with Manpreet Singh on 23.03.2014.

CRM-M-9800-2018 has been filed by the petitioner-Manpreet

Singh (husband of the complainant’s daughter) for quashing of FIR No.0259

dated 25.07.2017 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC at

Women Police Station Gurgaon (Annexure P-1), on merits.

Whereas CRM-M-55955-2018 has been filed by the petitioners,

namely, Gurpartap Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Major Singh, who are father,

mother and uncle of Manpreet Singh (husband) respectively, for quashing of

aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 06.12.2018

(Annexure P-2) as entered between the parties before the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since the matter

has been compromised between the parties, present FIR deserves to be

quashed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant fairly admits

the very factum of compromise entered between the parties and states that as

per the settlement dated 06.12.2018, the petitioner-Manpreet Singh

(husband) is required to pay an amount of Rs.19.50 lakhs to the complainant

and out of this amount, an amount of Rs.10 lakhs had already been paid on

10.12.2018 by way of bank draft bearing No.568102 of Punjab National

Bank, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. For the remaining amount of Rs.9,50,000/-,

a bank draft bearing No.008521 dated 11.02.2019 of Axis Bank Limited, has

been handed over to the complainant-Jaspal Singh Jubbal, present in the

Court today.

2 of 6
17-02-2019 12:18:48 :::
CRM-M-9800-2018 -3-

The photocopies of the drafts submitted by the counsel for the

petitioners reflecting above payments are taken on record.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Sunny, states

that in the aforesaid FIR, no challan has been presented against the

petitioners in CRM-M-55955-2018 and they have been put in column No.2.

Therefore, the petitioners in this case have no right to approach this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering

the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties before the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 06.12.2018 whereby the

parties are required to settle their disputes including quashing of FIR and

other cases, this Court finds that the FIR, as a whole, is liable to be quashed.

The relevant extract of the details of cases between the parties

and the terms and conditions so settled between the parties in paras No.6 and

7 of the settlement dated 06.12.2018 read as under:-

“6. Apart from the present T.A., following cases are pending
between the parties:-

i) HMA No.1189 of 2016 dated 04.07.2016 titled as
‘Manpreet Singh Vs. Jasmine Jubbal’, pending before
Learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

ii) FIR No.0259 dated 25.07.2017 under Sections
498A, 506/34 IPC lodged by Mr. Jaspal Singh Jubbal on
behalf of Jasmine Jubbal at Police Station Women,
Gurgaon against Manpreet Singh (Husband), Gurpartap
Singh (Father-in-law), Balwinder Kaur (Mother-in-law)
and Major Singh Gill (Chacha).

iii) For quashing the abovesaid FIR, CRM-M-9800 of
2018 has been filed by Manpreet Singh-petitioner/first
party before the Hon’ble High Court, which is fixed for
13.02.2019.

3 of 6
17-02-2019 12:18:48 :::
CRM-M-9800-2018 -4-

7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the
parties hereto:

a) That both the parties namely Jasmine Jubbal and
Manpreet Singh are residing in Australia and have
obtained divorce order there from the Deputy Registrar
Boldiston dated 02 August, 2017 made at Parramatta.

b) That in lieu of full and final settlement of all the
disputes between the parties (Civil and Criminal), the
second party namely Manpreet Singh will pay a sum of
Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs and Fifty
Thousand only) to the first party-Jasmine Jubbal through
Demand Draft in the name of Jaspal Singh Jubbal,
Special Power of Attorney of Jasmine Jubbal in full and
final settlement. Out of which, Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lacs only) would be paid in the shape of Demand
Draft in the name of Sh. Jaspal Singh Jubbal, Special
Power of Attorney of Jasmine Jubbal at the time of first
hearing of quashing of the above-mentioned FIR by other
co-accused namely Gurpartap Singh (Father-in-law),
Balwinder Kaur (Mother-in-law) and Major Singh
(Chacha) and remaining amount of Rs.9,50,000/-
(Rupees Nine Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) would be
paid on the date of final hearing of quashing of the
abovesaid FIR qua all the accused of the second party.

c) That after receiving the abovesaid amount of
Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs and Fifty
Thousand only), the first party-Jasmine Jubbal will
withdraw her the abovesaid T.A. No.684 of 2018 pending
before the Hon’ble High Court.

d) The second party namely Manpreet Singh has
already filed application to withdraw the above-said
Divorce Petition filed by him in the Court of Additional
District Judge, Ludhiana. The second party-Manpreet
Singh has agreed to withdraw the abovesaid Divorce

4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2019 12:18:48 :::
CRM-M-9800-2018 -5-

Petition as divorce granted by the Australian Court has
become final.

e) That Jaspal Singh Jubbal, Special Power of
Attorney of first party Jasmine Jubbal shall have no
objection for allowing the quashing petition to quash the
FIR No.0259 dated 25.07.2017 under Sections 498A,
506/34 IPC at Police Station Women, Gurgaon (in
petition bearing CRM-M-9800 of 2018 filed by Manpreet
Singh-petitioner/first party pending before the Hon’ble
High Court for 13.02.2019) in view of the present
settlement/ agreement.

f) That no other Civil or Criminal case is pending
between the parties and both the parties undertake not to
file any other litigation against each other relating to
matrimonial dispute in future in India and Australia as
well both parties shall not interfere in their personal and
professional life.

g) That the first party shall not claim any
maintenance, permanent alimony, any right in the
property from the second party in future for herself.
Second party will also not make any such demand in
future.

h) That there will remain no dispute about dowry
articles after receiving the abovesaid amount.”

The 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 Article 226 of the

5 of 6
17-02-2019 12:18:48 :::
CRM-M-9800-2018 -6-

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), the petition i.e. CRM-M-9800-2018 is allowed and

FIR No.0259 dated 25.07.2017 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506,

34 of IPC at Women Police Station Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) on the basis of

compromise dated 06.12.2018, however, that would be subject to payment

of costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund

of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),

Chandigarh, within one month from today.

Since no challan has been filed against the petitioners in CRM-

M-55955-2018 and they have been kept in column No.2, the same is

dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
13.02.2019
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No

6 of 6
17-02-2019 12:18:48 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation