Skip to content


Talwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantTalwinder Singh
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
.....dated 06.06.2010 (annexure p-1) under sections 494, 323, 506 read with section 34 of indian penal code and sections 3 and 4 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 registered at police station a division, amritsar, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, annexure p-2, having been entered between the parties. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. it has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that crm m-40722 of 2012 -2- dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature and the same has since been settled due to intervention of respectable persons and relatives from both the sides. it is also contended that parties are not living together. respondent no.2 also appeared in.....
Judgment:

CRM M-40722 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-40722 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 04, 2013.

Talwinder Singh ..........PETITIONER(s).VERSUS State of Punjab and another .........RESPONDENT(s).CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (s).Mr.Ashish Sanghi, D.A.G., Punjab.

Respondent No.2 in person with Mr.Jagtar Singh, Advocate.

******* RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.111 dated 06.06.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 494, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 registered at Police Station A Division, Amritsar, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2, having been entered between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that CRM M-40722 of 2012 -2- dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature and the same has since been settled due to intervention of respectable persons and relatives from both the sides.

It is also contended that parties are not living together.

Respondent No.2 also appeared in person with her counsel and filed reply by way of affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stated that she is residing with the petitioner happily in the matrimonial home and she is having no objection if the FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

In appropriate cases FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable.

It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v.

State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.

Since the dispute was matrimonial in nature which has been settled due to intervention of the respectable persons and relatives from both the sides, in the interest of harmonious relations between the parties, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.111 dated 06.06.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 494, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 registered at Police Station A Division, Amritsar alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioner Talwinder Singh is, hereby, quashed.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 04, 2013.

JUDGE Sachin M.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //