SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 December, 2019

278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-32466 of 2019.
Decided on:- December 04, 2019.

Satnam Singh.
………Petitioner.
Versus

State of Punjab and another
………Respondents.

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

*****

Present:- Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Kartik Doot, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for

quashing of FIR No.49 dated 24.05.2018 under Sections 498-A and Section406 IPC

registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural, Amritsar

(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis

of compromise deed dated 03.05.2019 (Annexure P-2).

This Court vide order dated 22.08.2019 had directed the parties

to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to get their respective

statements recorded with regard to compromise and the Court was directed to

send its report qua genuineness of the compromise.

1 of 3
08-12-2019 01:55:44 :::
CRM-M-32466 of 2019 -2-

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner and respondent

No.2-complainant have appeared before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Amritsar and got their statements recorded in support of the compromise on

30.09.2019. On the basis of the statements so recorded by the parties, learned

Magistrate has submitted report dated 10.10.2019 to the effect that the

compromise is genuine and voluntary and is without any coercion or undue

influence.

The FIR in question has been recorded on the basis of statement

of respondent No.2-complainant Manjot Kaur. She has already made a

statement in support of compromise before learned Magistrate on 30.09.2019,

the relevant part of which reads as under:

“State that I have got registered FIR no.49 of 24.05.2018
under Sectionsections 498A, Section406 of Indian Penal Code, police station
Kamboj, Amritsar against accused Satnam Singh. Now, with the
intervention of respectable persons, I have arrived at a
compromise with the said accused voluntarily and without any
kind of threat fear or pressure. I have no objection, if FIR no.49
of 24.05.2018 under Sections 498A, Section406 of Indian Penal Code,
police station Kamboj, Amritsar is quashed against the said
accused. I am making my statement today in the court without
any kind of pressure, coercion and fear.”

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2

have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, continuation of the proceedings before the

trial Court in the instant FIR qua the petitioner shall be an abuse of the

process of law.

2 of 3
08-12-2019 01:55:45 :::
CRM-M-32466 of 2019 -3-

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 well as the law laid down in Gold Quest International

Private Limited’s case (supra), the present petition is allowed and the FIR

No.49 dated 24.05.2018 under Sections 498-A and Section406 IPC registered at

Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and

all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner

on the basis of compromise deed dated 03.05.2019 (Annexure P-2), however,

subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Bar Association of this

Court, which shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of one month

from today.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
December 04, 2019 JUDGE
Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

Whether Reportable: No

3 of 3
08-12-2019 01:55:45 :::

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