High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/43972/2016allowed

Rajinder Kumar Parmar And ORS. v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

2017-02-17Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

Crl. Misc. No. M-43972 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-43972 of 2016 Date of decision : 17.02.2017 Rajinder Kumar Parmar and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and anr.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. A.P.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Quashing of FIR No. 71 dated 05.09.2014 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar and order dated 21.03.2015, is being sought on the basis of compromise deed dated 16.11.2016 (P-2) Respondent No. 2 got married to petitioner No. 3 on 30.11.2012. 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 16.11.2016 (P-2) In compliance of order dated 09.12.2016, report dated 17.01.2017 of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) cum Judl. Magistrate 1st Class, GAURAV ARORA 2017.02.27 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-43972 of 2016 Jalandhar has been received in this regard. As per report, statement of parties have been recorded. The 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 petitioner. The compromise has been entered voluntarily. To the same effect is the statement given by petitioner No. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 3 did not give his statement, as he was declared proclaimed offender but the complainant in her statement categorically stated that she has no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against petitioner No. 3 as well, as the matter stands compromised.

Consequently, in view of the status report dated 17.01.2017 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. 71 dated 05.09.2014 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar and order dated 21.03.2015, are quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of.

17.02.2017 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2017.02.27 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh