High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/31653/2016allowed

Balbir Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2017-03-30Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

Crl. Misc. No. M-31653 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31653 of 2016 Date of decision : 30.03.2017 Balbir Singh and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and anr.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Manpreet Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

**** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Quashing of FIR No. 44 dated 13.04.2014 under Sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 2 District Pathankot, is being sought on the basis of compromise deed dated 31.08.2016 (P-2) Respondent No. 2 got married to petitioner No. 1 on 21.11.2011. Due to temperamental differences, both the parties could not live together as husband and wife. The relationship between them became strained. F.I.R was registered against the petitioners for harassing and humiliating respondent No. 2 on the pretext of bringing insufficient dowry. However, the matter has now been duly compromised, vide compromise deed dated 31.08.2016 (P-2) In compliance of order dated 08.09.2016, report dated 07.03.2017 of Judl. Magistrate 1st Class, Pathankot has been received in this GAURAV ARORA 2017.04.07 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-31653 of 2016 regard. As per report, statement of parties have been recorded. The complainant stated that the matter stands compromised between the parties she does not want to proceed further against the accused and has no objection, if the present F.I.R be quashed against the petitioners. The compromise has been entered voluntarily. To the same effect is the statements given by the petitioners.

Consequently, in view of the status report dated 07.03.2017 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.

Accordingly, FIR No. 44 dated 13.04.2014 under Sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 2 District Pathankot, is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

The petition stands disposed of.

30.03.2017 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2017.04.07 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh