SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sunny Soin And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 February, 2018

Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 23, 2018

Sunny Soin and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 108 dated

18.06.2011 under Sections 324, 323, 498A IPC registered at Police

Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and all other

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a

compromise arrived at between the parties.

The abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance of

respondent No.2 due to matrimonial discord with her husband i.e.,

petitioner No.1.

1 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:25 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 2

It is informed that petition under Section 13B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ – for short) filed by petitioner No. 1 and

respondent No. 2 has since been allowed on 17.11.2017. The entire

settled amount has been received by respondent No. 2. All her claims

qua the petitioner stand settled.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner

No. 2 i.e. the mother-in-law of the complainant could not appear before

the learned trial Court in terms of order dated 21.11.2017 as it came to

light that non-bailable warrants had been issued qua her by the learned

trial Court on 24.03.2017. Bail applications moved by petitioner No. 2

for anticipatory bail in the year 2014 were dismissed by this Court. The

matter was pending investigation. Petitioner No. 2 was kept in column

No. 2 as it is so reflected in order dated 10.10.2016. Petitioner No. 2

has also filed CRM-M-5770-2018 seeking concession of anticipatory

bail, however, respondent No. 2 has clearly stated that she has no

objection to the quashing of aforementioned FIR against all the accused

petitioners in view of the settlement. Therefore, non-appearance of

petitioner No. 2 should not be an impediment to the quashing of this

FIR as petitioner No. 2 undertakes to be bound by the terms and

conditions of the settlement (which have in fact been carried out) and

respondent No. 2 has also expressed that she has no objection to the

quashing of this FIR qua petitioner No. 2 as well.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 affirms the factum of

settlement as well as the averments in respect to petitioner No. 2. It is

submitted that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the

2 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 3

aforementioned FIR against all the petitioners including petitioner

No. 2.

Learned counsel for the State verifies passing of order

dated 10.10.2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana

wherein it is mentioned that petitioner No. 2 was kept in column No. 2

on being found innocent.

This Court on 21.11.2017 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.

Pursuant to order dated 21.11.2017, the parties appeared

before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana and their

statements were recorded on 07.12.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that

she has compromised the matter with all the accused out of her own

free will, without any pressure or undue influence and she no longer

wishes to pursue the proceedings. She specifically stated that petition

under Section 13B of the Act was allowed on 17.11.2017. Respondent

No.2 stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the abovesaid

3 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 4

FIR qua all the petitioners. Statements of all the petitioners except

petitioner No. 2 in respect to the compromise were also recorded.

As per report dated 22.02.2018, received from the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana satisfaction is expressed that

the compromise between the parties is genuine, arrived at out of the

free will of the parties, without any pressure or undue influence. It is

noted that the complainant – respondent No. 2 has specifically stated

that she no objection to the quashing of the aforementioned FIR against

petitioner No. 2 as well. 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 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

4 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 42248 of 2017 (OM) 5

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. 108 dated

18.06.2011 under Sections 324, 323, 498A IPC registered at Police

Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana alongwith all

consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

(Lisa Gill)
February 23, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
05-03-2018 00:40:28 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh