Tarun Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.02.2016 Tarun Kumar ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes/No

2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes/No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Present:

Mr. D.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent No.1 - State.

None for respondent No.2.

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 27.03.2015, registered under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot and other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-18154 of 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the terms and conditions as settled in the compromise have been complied with

as an amount of `2.5 lacs has been paid to the complainant at the time of filing of divorce petition with mutual consent. All the pending cases including the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have been withdrawn. The remaining amount of `2.5 lacs shall be paid at the time of recording of second motion statement for divorce. Complainant appeared before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot and has specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 inspite of service.

Vide order dated 02.11.2015, the parties were directed to appear before Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise.

In response to the said directions issued by this Court, the parties have appeared before the Illaqa Magistrate and their statements were recorded. After recording of their statements, a report along with the statements of the parties has been sent, which is on record wherein the factum of compromise has been affirmed. It has also been mentioned in the report that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine and without any fear or pressure from either side. Complainant-respondent No.2 has specifically stated in her statement that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings.

Since the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in

nature and the same has been settled by way of compromise; complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings, no purpose would be served in case proceedings are continued in future as it would amount to wastage of precious time of the Court.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.38 dated 27.03.2015, registered under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner, namely, Tarun Kumar are hereby quashed .

03.02.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE