Satnam Singh & ANR v. State Of Haryana & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.02.2016 Satnam Singh and another ..Petitioners

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. Vaneet Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1 - State.

None for respondent No.2.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.335 dated 24.12.2009 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar and other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties during pendency of the proceedings.

While issuing notice of motion on 01.12.2015, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their

statements with regard to compromise.

In response to the said directions issued by this Court, the parties appeared before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar 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 pressure and coercion 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. It has also been stated by the complainant that she has started to reside with petitioner No.1Satnam Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at present, petitioner No.1 and the complainant are residing together as both the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise. The FIR was the result of some misunderstanding, which has been sorted out.

Since the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature and the same has been settled by way of compromise as both the parties are residing together; complainant is happy with petitioner No.1 and 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. Moreover, it would not be in the interest of the parties as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.335 dated 24.12.2009 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners, namely, Satnam Singh and Lakhvir Kaur @ Lakhwinder Kaur, are hereby quashed. 16.02.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE