Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1024 (PNJ)

Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-05-28

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2009
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. Prayer in these petitions is for quashing of FIR No. 191, dated 02.12.2002, registered under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station A Division, Amritsar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise. It would be necessary to mention here that Crl. Misc. No. M-10795 of 2009 has been filed by the husband whereas Crl. Misc. No. 18940-M of 2004 has been filed by the husbands relatives. 2. Matrimonial differences between Inderjit Singh and the complainant- respondent No. 2 led to the registration of the aforementioned FIR. During the pendency of the trial, Inderjit Singh and the complainant/respondent No. 2 settled their differences and agreed to sever their matrimonial relations. For this purpose, a petition praying for grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been filed before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar. The Additional District Judge, Amritsar has recorded the statements of Inderjit Singh and the complainant on 16.02.2009, where they have deposed and prayed that as they cannot live as husband and wife, their marriage be dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It nas also been, agreed that petitioner No. 1 would pay Rs. 8,25,000/- to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- has been received by the complainant and it has been agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of grant of the decree of divorce. 3. Counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the complainant pray that in view of the aforementioned facts, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. 4. Counsel for the State of Punjab states that in view of the settlement between the parties, the State would not stand in the way of the settlement and would not oppose the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the statements made by the parties before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar and am of the considered opinion that the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No. 2 have resolved their differences by a bona fide compromise, free from any fraud; coercion or undue influence. The complainant-Prabhjit Kaur, who is present in Court, has been duly identified by her counsel. She acknowledges the settlement, the filing of the petition for divorce, the receipt of Rs. The complainant-Prabhjit Kaur, who is present in Court, has been duly identified by her counsel. She acknowledges the settlement, the filing of the petition for divorce, the receipt of Rs. 3,25,000/- and accepts the fact that the balance amount is to be paid to her on the date of grant of the decree of divorce. She also states that she has no objection, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 6. It is no doubt true that the offences complained of, are non-compoundable. However, the Honble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar controversy, in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another; 2004(1) Apex Criminal 197 : 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, has held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled their dispute, by a bona fide settlement, High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be justified in quashing proceedings emanating from matrimonial disputes. A perusal of the facts of the present case reveals that, Inderjit Singh and respondent No. 2 have arrived at a bona fide compromise. In view of the compromise, the complainant and her witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution and to permit prosecution to carry on would, in my opinion, be an exercise in futility and a wastage of time and money. It is a fit case, where this Court in the exercise of Jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should put an end to these futile criminal proceedings and quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 7. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, these petitions are allowed, FIR No. 191, dated 02.12.2002, registered under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian.Penal Code, at Police Station A Division, Amritsar and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.