Criminal Misc. No.M- 20767 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Misc. No.M- 20767 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : March 12, 2018
Sohan Singh and others …..Petitioners
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhleen Singh, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. M.S. Punia, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 38 dated
06.06.2013 under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station
Women, District Patiala and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
1 of 4
18-03-2018 00:25:46 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 20767 of 2017 (OM) 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 submitted that respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 have
resumed matrimonial ties and both of them are living together in the
matrimonial home in peace and harmony alongwith their minor children. It
is submitted that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the
above mentioned FIR against all the petitioners. The present petition has
been filed on the basis of this compromise.
This Court on 02.06.2017 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 voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. Learned
trial Court was also directed to intimate whether any of the accused are
proclaimed offenders. Information was sought regarding number of persons
arrayed as accused.
Pursuant to order dated 02.06.2017, the parties appeared before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala and their statements were
recorded on 10.07.2017. 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 or coercion. Respondent No.2 further stated
that she is residing in her matrimonial home peacefully alongwith her
husband and children and she has no objection to the quashing of the
abovesaid FIR qua the petitioners. Joint statement of the petitioners in
respect to the compromise was also recorded.
As per report dated 20.07.2017 received from the learned
2 of 4
18-03-2018 00:25:47 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 20767 of 2017 (OM) 3
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala satisfaction is expressed that the
compromise between the parties is genuine, executed between the parties
out of their own free will and consent, 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 in view of the resumption of matrimonial ties.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Gurjit
Singh, 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. It is verified that petitioner No. 1
and respondent No. 2 are living together in the matrimonial home alongwith
their minor children.
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
3 of 4
18-03-2018 00:25:47 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 20767 of 2017 (OM) 4
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. 38 dated 06.06.2013
under Sections 406, 498A IPC registered at Police Station Women, District
Patiala alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.
However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file
necessary application for revival of the proceedings in the above said FIR,
in case the terms and conditions of settlement between the parties are not
adhered to by the petitioner(s) or it is found that the settlement was a mere
ruse to have the aforesaid FIR quashed.
March 12, 2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
18-03-2018 00:25:47 :::