High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4117/2016allowed

Brij Lal & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ANR

2016-08-24Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

Crl. Misc. No. M-4117 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4117 of 2016 Date of decision : 24.08.2016 Brij Lal and anr.

......Petitioners versus State of Punjab & anr.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Lovekesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. A.P.S. Gill, A.A.G. Punjab Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Quashing of FIR No. 2 dated 15.01.2012 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar, is being sought on the basis of compromise deed dated 01.12.2014 (Annexure P-2).

Respondent No. 2 got married to petitioner No. 1 on 08.01.2006. Due to temperamental differences, both the parties could not live together as husband and wife. Two children were born out of this wedlock. The relationship between them became strain and thereafter, the F.I.R was registered against the petitioners on account of bringing less dowry and harassment caused by the petitioners. However, the matter has now been duly compromised, vide compromise deed dated 01.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) and it was decided that the custody of both the children will remain with petitioner No. 1 and he GAURAV ARORA 2016.08.30 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-4117 of 2016 had agreed to give Rs.2,70,000/- as full and final settlement to respondent No. 2.

In compliance of order dated 29.04.2016, report of District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has been received in this regard. As per report, statement of complainant and statement of petitioners have been recorded. Complainant stated that the matter stands compromised between the parties and 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 statement given by the petitioners.

Consequently, in view of the status report 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. 2 dated 15.01.2012 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar, is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.

The petition stands disposed of.

24.08.2016 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2016.08.30 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document