SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinod Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 1 May, 2019

286.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-28549-2018
Date of decision:01.05.2019

VINOD KUMAR AND ORS … Petitioners

versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR …. Respondents

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

Present: Ms. Monika Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr.Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 in person.

—-

HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

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

quashing of F.I.R. No.104 dated 19.09.2014 registered under Sections

406/Section498-A of IPC at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1)

and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure P-2).

This Court vide order dated 10.12.2018 had directed the parties

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

recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the

genuineness of the compromise. However, the parties could not appear

before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate and again vide order dated

23.01.2019, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa

Magistrate to get their statements recorded in terms of order dated

10.12.2018.

1 of 3
12-05-2019 16:14:37 :::
CRM-M-28549-2018 -2-

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and got their statements

recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has

submitted report dated 11.03.2019 to the effect that the compromise is

genuine and has been effected between the parties without any pressure or

coercion.

Respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Tripta has made her

statement with regard to compromise before learned Magistrate on

28.02.2019. The same is reproduced as under:-

“I have compromised the matter with Vinod Kumar,
Mohan Singh and Sushila Devi in FIR No.104 dated
19.09.2014, U/s 406/498A SectionIPC, PS Women Cell Ludhiana was
registered against the above said accused on my statement.
Now with the intervention of the respectables, compromise was
executed (copy of original compromise already attached with
the quashing petition before Hon’ble High Court). Now nothing
is due against the accused persons. I have no objection if the
above said FIR may be quashed against Vinod Kumar, Mohan
Singh and Sushila Devi. I am giving the statement with my free
consent without any coercion.”

Learned State counsel has 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

2 of 3
12-05-2019 16:14:38 :::
CRM-M-28549-2018 -3-

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 also in the light of Gold Quest International Private

Limited’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.104 dated

19.09.2014 registered under Sections 406/Section498-A of IPC at Police Station

Women Cell, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise

dated 27.02.2018 (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 16:14:38 :::

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