Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090881
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-24-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr.Veneet Sharma Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm-m no.21503 of 2013 1 in the punjab & haryana high court at chandigarh crm-m no.21503 of 2013 date of decision : 24.09.2013 gurpreet singh and others ..petitioners versus state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.veneet sharma, advocate for the petitioners.*** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. to be referred to the reporter or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rekha mittal, j. mr.amarinder singh klar, aag, punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. mr.sumit dua, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. through the present petition filed under section 482 cr.p.c., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of fir no.190 dated 05.11.2012 for offence punishable under sections 498-a, 494, 420, 120-b ipc, registered at police station 'c' divison, amritsar and proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 10.12.2012 (annexure p2).effected between the parties. in the instant case, the fir was registered on the statement of complainant / respondent no.2 sarabjit kaur daughter of amarjit singh, davinder kumar 2013.10.01 10:56 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.21503 of 2013 2 wife of gurpeet singh. now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, vide compromise deed dated 10.12.2012(annexure p2).the complainant / respondent no.2 sarabjit kaur daughter of amarjit singh, wife of gurpeet singh is present in court along with her counsel. affidavit of respondent no.2 filed in court is taken on record. her statement was recorded in the court. an extract from her statement is quoted thus:- “due to marital differences between me on one hand and my husband gurpreet singh on the other hand, fir no.190 dated 05.11.2012, under sections 498-a, 494, 420, 120-b ipc, was registered at my behest against gurpreet singh and his parents. the matter has been settled by way of compromise entered into between the parties vide compromise deed annexure p2. the marriage between me and gurpreet singh stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. i have arrived at a settlement with the petitioners according to my free will and consent, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. i have got no objection if the aforesaid fir and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.”. counsel for the petitioners submits that as the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings. counsel for the state of punjab has not disputed correctness of the contention of the petitioners that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. there is nothing on record to doubt correctness of the crm-m no.21503 of 2013 3 compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony. the present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise, in view of the decision of hon'ble the supreme court of india in gian singh v. state of punjab and another, 2012(4) r.c.r.(criminal) 543. in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and fir no.190 dated 05.11.2012 for offence punishable under sections 498-a, 494, 420, 120-b ipc, registered at police station 'c' divison, amritsar and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.(rekha mittal) judge september 24, 2013. davinder kumar
Judgment:

CRM-M No.21503 of 2013 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.21503 of 2013 Date of decision : 24.09.2013 Gurpreet Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioneRs.*** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

REKHA MITTAL, J.

Mr.Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.

Mr.Sumit Dua, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

Through the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.190 dated 05.11.2012 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station 'C' Divison, Amritsar and proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P2).effected between the parties.

In the instant case, the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant / respondent No.2 Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Amarjit Singh, Davinder Kumar 2013.10.01 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21503 of 2013 2 wife of Gurpeet Singh.

Now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, vide compromise deed dated 10.12.2012(Annexure P2).The complainant / respondent No.2 Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Amarjit Singh, wife of Gurpeet Singh is present in Court along with her counsel.

Affidavit of respondent No.2 filed in Court is taken on record.

Her statement was recorded in the Court.

An extract from her statement is quoted thus:- “Due to marital differences between me on one hand and my husband Gurpreet Singh on the other hand, FIR No.190 dated 05.11.2012, under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 120-B IPC, was registered at my behest against Gurpreet Singh and his parents.

The matter has been settled by way of compromise entered into between the parties vide compromise deed Annexure P2.

The marriage between me and Gurpreet Singh stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.

I have arrived at a settlement with the petitioners according to my free will and consent, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure.

I have got no objection if the aforesaid FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.”

.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Counsel for the State of Punjab has not disputed correctness of the contention of the petitioners that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

There is nothing on record to doubt correctness of the CRM-M No.21503 of 2013 3 compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony.

The present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 543.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and FIR No.190 dated 05.11.2012 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station 'C' Divison, Amritsar and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioneRs.(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE September 24, 2013.

Davinder Kumar