Vicky Mittal & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ORS

CRM-M-24452-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24452-2016 Date of Decision:- 19.10.2016 Vicky Mittal and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Manpreet Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.80 dated 10.09.2010, under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-4).

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Vicky Mittal on 03.04.2009 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After few days of marriage, the behavior of the accused became changed and he started harassing the complainant on account of demand of dowry. Due to incompatibility of temperament, both the parties could not live together as husband and wife. The relationship between them became strained and thereafter, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in Naresh Kumar 2016.10.22 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh view the peace and harmony, the matter has now been amicably settled

CRM-M-24452-2016 -2between the parties with the intervention of respectable persons, vide compromise (Annexure P-4).

During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court, was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise (Annexure P-4), by way of order dated 27.08.2016, by this Court. In compliance of order dated 27.08.2016 of this Court, the report of District & Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dated 21.09.2016 has been received. As per the report, the statements of all the concerned parties have been recorded and the complainant has no objection, if the present FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. Statements of the petitioners and complainant have been recorded to the same effect. Consequently, in view of the above-said report and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910; Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation. Accordingly, FIR No.80 dated 10.09.2010, under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-4).

The present petition stands disposed of.

October 19, 2016 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2016.10.22 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh