Satwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1058732
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-29-2013
AppellantSatwinder Singh and Others
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm m-28418 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm not m-28418 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision: january 29, 2013 satwinder singh and others ..petitioners versus state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh present: mr.j.s.toor, advocate, for mr.neeraj sharma, advocate, for the petitioners.mr.gurinderjit singh, dag, punjab. mr.pritpal singh bassi, advocate, for mr.a.s.barnala, advocate, for respondent no.2. paramjeet singh, j. (oral) present petition has been filed under section 482 cr.p.c.for quashing of fir no.233 dated 6.12.2010, under sections 498-a and 406 of the indian penal code, registered at police station phase-i, sas nagar, mohali and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of this fir, on the basis of compromise dated 31.07.2012 (annexure p-2).learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this court in the matter of bhupinder kaur versus state of punjab and another, 2004(2) rcr (criminal) 443 to contend that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted for the offence for the reason that the complainant has compromised the matter with the crm m-28418 o”2. accused and he is not likely to support the prosecution and from other facts and circumstances available on the record, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to decline the prayer for quashing of the fir on the ground that it would amount to be permitting the parties to compound non- compoundable offence. learned counsel for respondent no.2-poonam on instructions from gurmail singh, father and power of attorney of complainant, who is present in court today, states that the complainant has compromised the matter and would have no objection, if the present fir alongwith consequential proceedings, arising out of it, are quashed. learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also handed over an affidavit dated 7.11.2012 of gurmail singh-father of respondent no.2 to the above effect, which is taken on record. the relevant part of the affidavit reads as under: “4. that keeping in view the betterment and future of satwinder singh and poonam, with the intervention of the relatives and respectable, compromise has been effected on 31.07.2012. as per the compromise deed dated 31.07.2012 the deponent on behalf of poonam has received a sum of rs.20 lacs from satwinder singh. the detail of the amount is as under: i) rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) by way of pay order no.151014 dt. 3.7.2012 of andhra bank, ph-7 mohali received on 31.07.2012. ii) rs.8,00,000/- (eight lacs) by way of pay order crm m-28418 o”3. no.151071 dt. 14.8.2012 of andhra bank, ph-7 mohali received on 17.08.2012. iii) rs.10,00,000/- (ten lacs) by way of cash against the receipt dated 17.08.2012.”5. that after receiving the total amount as per the compromise the divorce petition with mutual consent has been filed and has made statement in the divorce petition.”6. that my daughter poonam has registered the fir no.233 dated 6.12.2010 under section 498/406 ipc ipc, police station phase-i, mohali. dowry articles which were given at the time of marriage that has been received from satwinder singh's family members.not there is no dowry article lying with them.” consequently, in view of compromise (annexure p-2) and keeping in view the law laid down by the hon'ble apex court in the case of madan mohan abbot versus state of punjab, 2008(2) rcr (criminal) 429, which has been affirmed by a larger bench of the hon'ble supreme court in gian singh versus state of punjab and another, 2012(4) r.c.r.(criminal) 543, full bench judgment of this court in the case of kulwinder singh and others versus state of punjab and another, 2007(3) rcr (crl.) 1052, and judgment of this court in bhupinder kaur's case (supra) no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional crm m-28418 o”4. cases where this court should not exercise its inherent jurisdictional powers to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in gian singh's case (supra).in the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end. it would rather be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings so that the parties may lead peaceful and harmonious life independently having entered into compromise to separate ways in matrimonial dispute. present petition is allowed. fir no.233 dated 6.12.2010, under sections 498-a and 406 of the indian penal code, registered at police station phase-i, sas nagar, mohali, is hereby quashed and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the said fir also stand quashed. january 29, 2013 [paramjeet singh].parveen kumar judge
Judgment:

CRM M-28418 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-28418 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 29, 2013 Satwinder Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate, for Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr.Pritpal Singh Bassi, Advocate, for Mr.A.S.Barnala, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

(Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of FIR No.233 dated 6.12.2010, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of this FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P-2).Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Bhupinder Kaur versus State of Punjab and another, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 443 to contend that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted for the offence for the reason that the complainant has compromised the matter with the CRM M-28418 o”

2. accused and he is not likely to support the prosecution and from other facts and circumstances available on the record, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to decline the prayer for quashing of the FIR on the ground that it would amount to be permitting the parties to compound non- compoundable offence.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Poonam on instructions from Gurmail Singh, father and power of attorney of complainant, who is present in Court today, states that the complainant has compromised the matter and would have no objection, if the present FIR alongwith consequential proceedings, arising out of it, are quashed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also handed over an affidavit dated 7.11.2012 of Gurmail Singh-father of respondent No.2 to the above effect, which is taken on record.

The relevant part of the affidavit reads as under: “4.

That keeping in view the betterment and future of Satwinder Singh and Poonam, with the intervention of the relatives and respectable, compromise has been effected on 31.07.2012.

As per the compromise deed dated 31.07.2012 the deponent on behalf of Poonam has received a sum of Rs.20 lacs from Satwinder Singh.

The detail of the amount is as under: i) Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lacs) by way of Pay Order No.151014 dt.

3.7.2012 of Andhra Bank, Ph-7 Mohali received on 31.07.2012.

ii) Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lacs) by way of Pay Order CRM M-28418 o”

3. No.151071 dt.

14.8.2012 of Andhra Bank, Ph-7 Mohali received on 17.08.2012.

iii) Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) by way of cash against the receipt dated 17.08.2012.”

5. That after receiving the total amount as per the compromise the Divorce Petition with mutual consent has been filed and has made statement in the Divorce Petition.”

6. That my daughter Poonam has registered the FIR No.233 dated 6.12.2010 under Section 498/406 IPC IPC, Police Station Phase-I, Mohali.

Dowry articles which were given at the time of marriage that has been received from Satwinder Singh's family membeRs.not there is no dowry article lying with them.”

Consequently, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot versus State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, which has been affirmed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543, Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, and judgment of this Court in Bhupinder Kaur's case (supra) no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation, especially when this case does not fall within the category of exceptional CRM M-28418 o”

4. cases where this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdictional powers to quash the criminal proceedings, as held in Gian Singh's case (supra).In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, therefore, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end.

It would rather be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings so that the parties may lead peaceful and harmonious life independently having entered into compromise to separate ways in matrimonial dispute.

Present petition is allowed.

FIR No.233 dated 6.12.2010, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali, is hereby quashed and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR also stand quashed.

January 29, 2013 [Paramjeet Singh].parveen kumar Judge