Bachittar Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1138801
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-29-2014
AppellantBachittar Singh and Others
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. no.m-3747 of 2014 date of decision: april 29, 2014 bachittar singh and others .petitioners versus state of punjab and others .respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice surinder gupta present: mr.aman dhir, advocate for the petitioners mr.varun sharma, aag punjab mr.kanwal goyal, advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 surinder gupta, j the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (for short, 'cr.p.c.') seeking quashing of the fir no.334 dated 30.12.2011 (annexure p-1).registered for offence punishable under sections 498a/406/34 ipc at police station kotwali faridkot, district faridkot, on the basis of the compromise (annexure p-2).the fir relates to matrimonial dispute in between respondent no.3 and petitioner no.3. the fir was registered on the allegations of maltreatment and demand of dowry by the petitioners.upon notice, mr.varun sharma, assistant advocate general, punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1-state and mr.kanwal goyal, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 - complainant. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. the parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. the trial court has sent its report dated 17.03.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence. reena 2014.05.01 16:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl. misc. no.m-3747 of 2014 -2- learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 -complainant has submitted that in view of the compromise (annexure p/2).the private respondent (complainant) has no objection if the impugned fir (annexure p/1) is quashed . learned state counsel has also not disputed the settlement of the dispute of the parties through compromise (annexure p/2).the only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned fir is that the offence under section 498a ipc is not compoundable. in case kulwinder singh versus state of punjab, 2007 (3) rcr (crl.) 1052, full bench of this court has held that the fir can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under section 482 cr.p.c.even if the offence is not compoundable. in the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the friends and colleagues and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony. keeping all the above facts in view, i am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned fir should be quashed. keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. the quashing of the fir will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large. the offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise. in view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned fir (annexure p-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed. april 29, 2014 (surinder gupta) reena judge reena 2014.05.01 16:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

No.M-3747 of 2014 Date of decision: April 29, 2014 Bachittar Singh and others .Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Surinder Gupta Present: Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Varun Sharma, AAG Punjab Mr.Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 Surinder Gupta, J The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.334 dated 30.12.2011 (Annexure P-1).registered for offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2).The FIR relates to matrimonial dispute in between respondent No.3 and petitioner No.3.

The FIR was registered on the allegations of maltreatment and demand of dowry by the petitioneRs.Upon notice, Mr.Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr.Kanwal Goyal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 - complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded.

The trial court has sent its report dated 17.03.2014 stating therein that the compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the accused which appears to be voluntary in nature and without any pressure or influence.

Reena 2014.05.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.M-3747 of 2014 -2- Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 -complainant has submitted that in view of the compromise (Annexure P/2).the private respondent (complainant) has no objection if the impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) is quashed .

Learned State counsel has also not disputed the settlement of the dispute of the parties through compromise (Annexure P/2).The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned FIR is that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable.

In case Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.even if the offence is not compoundable.

In the instant case, the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the friends and colleagues and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed.

Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice.

The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large.

The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.

In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.

April 29, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) reena Judge Reena 2014.05.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh