Milkha Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.11.2018 Milkha Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Present:- Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

Mr.Jagmeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

(Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.45 dated 08.06.2010 registered under Sections 498-A & 406 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station P.A.U., District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2). In brief, the facts are that a marriage was solemnized between the Milkha Singh and respondent No.2 on 06.08.2006 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock one daughter was born. Some differences arose between the parties and the instant FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, the petitioner herein. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the

-2parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences. Further marriage between Milkha Singh and Ravinder Kaur Bansal has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2018 and that FIR qua other persons has already been quashed in CRM-M-21314-2010 by order dated 12.12.2014. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, learned Asstt. A.G., Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainantrespondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that the parties have indeed settled their dispute and are residing together, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

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

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal

-3prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No.45 dated 08.06.2010 registered under Sections 498-A & 406 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station P.A.U., District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioner is quashed The petition stands disposed of.

29.11.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No