SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tejinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 November, 2017

CRM No.M-9453 of 2016



Criminal Misc. No. M- 9453 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: November 15 , 2017.

Tejinder Singh …… PETITIONER(s)


State of Punjab and others …… RESPONDENT (s)


Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. S.P.Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.


Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.145 dated

01.10.2014 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.

The abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2

due to matrimonial discord between her daughter i.e., respondent No.3 and the

petitioner. With the intervention of respectables and relatives, a compromise

was arrived at between the parties. The parties decided to bury the hatchet and

live in peace and harmony. The petitioner and respondent No.3 have resumed

1 of 4
21-11-2017 23:07:09 :::
CRM No.M-9453 of 2016


cohabitation and are living together in their matrimonial home.

This Court on 22.11.2016 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 arrived

at between the parties and intimate whether any other case or PO proceedings are

pending against either of the parties.

Pursuant to order dated 22.11.2016, the parties appeared before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala and their statements were

recorded on 22.12.2016. Joint statement of respondents No.2 and 3 was

recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the accused

petitioner. Respondent No.3, it is stated, was residing at her matrimonial home

alongwith the petitioner. The settlement, it is stated, has been arrived at

voluntarily, without any pressure, threat or coercion. Respondents No.2 and 3

stated that they have no objection in case the abovesaid FIR against the accused

petitioner is quashed. Statement of the petitioner in respect to the settlement was

recorded as well.

As per report dated 16.01.2017 received from the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Patiala, it is opined that the compromise between the

parties is genuine and executed between them out of their free will and consent

without any threat or pressure. Petitioner, who is the sole accused in this case, is

not reported to be a proclaimed offender. Statements of the parties are appended

alongwith the said report.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 reaffirms and verifies

2 of 4
21-11-2017 23:07:10 :::
CRM No.M-9453 of 2016


the factum of settlement between the parties as well as resumption of

matrimonial ties between the petitioner and respondent No.3. It is stated that

both of the them even as on date are living together in their matrimonial home. It

is reiterated that respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection to the quashing of the

abovementioned FIR against the petitioner.

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

the FIR in question as well as all consequential proceedings 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 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.145 dated 01.10.2014

under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Station Women, District

3 of 4
21-11-2017 23:07:10 :::
CRM No.M-9453 of 2016


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 or it is found that the settlement was a mere ruse to have the aforesaid

FIR quashed.

November 15 , 2017. JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
21-11-2017 23:07:10 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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