300.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3490-2019
Date of decision:01.05.2019
SUNIL GOYAL … Petitioner
versus
STATE OF UT., CHANDIGARH AND ANR. …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
—-
Present: Mr. Apanjyot S. Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Toor, APP, UT, Chandigarh,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, 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 F.I.R. No.315 dated 24.07.2015 registered under Section 498A
of IPC at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated
17.01.2019 (Annexure P-2).
This Court vide order dated 25.01.2019 had directed the parties
to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to get their statements
recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the
genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and got their statements
recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has
1 of 3
12-05-2019 16:15:51 :::
CRM-M-3490-2019 -2-
submitted report dated 07.03.2019 to the effect that the compromise has
been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or
undue influence.
Respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Poonam Goyal has
made her statement with regard to compromise before learned Magistrate on
01.03.2019. The same is reproduced as under:-
“I have compromised with the accused namely Sunil
Goyal s/o Jogi Ram in FIR No.315, dated 24.07.2015, u/s 498-
A SectionIPC, Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, in terms of
compromise effected before Hon’ble High Court which is
pending there for 01.05.2019. Further I do not want to pursue
the present FIR against said accused. I have no objection if the
above said FIR is quashed in terms of compromise which has
been entered voluntarily without any pressure between me and
accused.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the parties are
staying together as husband and wife.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of UT Chandigarh as well
as learned counsel for respondent No.2, have not disputed the factum of
compromise between the parties.
In view of the above, 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
2 of 3
12-05-2019 16:15:51 :::
CRM-M-3490-2019 -3-
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.315 dated
24.07.2015 registered under Section 498A of IPC at Police Station Sector
39, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise dated
17.01.2019 (Annexure P-2).
(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
01.05.2019
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
12-05-2019 16:15:51 :::