Punjab-Haryana High CourtKuldeep Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 April, 2014Author:Surinder GuptaBench:Surinder GuptaCRM-M No.8387 of 2014                                                      -1-



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                                      Crl. Misc. No. M-8387 of 2014 (O&M)

                                                              Date of decision: April 26, 2014

                 Kuldeep kaur and others
                                                                           .. Petitioners

                                           Versus

                 State of Punjab and others
                                                                           .. Respondents

                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

                 Present:      Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.

                               Ms. Shivali, Asstt. AG, Punjab.

                               Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate
                               for respondents No.2 and 3.

                 SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate has also put in appearance on

                 behalf of respondent No.3 and has filed his affidavit about the compromise

                 in this case. The same is taken on record.The petitioners have filed this petition underSection 482of the

                 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR

                 No.273 dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure P-1), registered for offences punishable

                 underSections 364,365,366,368,341, 120-B, 494, 497, 498,148read withSection 149Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Sri Muktsar

                 Sahib, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the

                 basis of the compromise effected between the parties through order dated

                 10.02.2014 passed in FAO No.247 of 2011 (Annexure P-2).Mehta Sachin2014.04.26 16:34I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentCHANDIGARHCRM-M No.8387 of 2014                                                         -2-Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was

                 a matrimonial dispute between Kuldeep Kaur petitioner No.1 and Gurdas

                 Singh respondent No.2 which resulted in various litigations including the

                 present one.    In an FAO-M-247-2011, the matter was taken up by the

                 Division Bench of this Court and the parties reached at amicable settlement

                 and following order was passed in that FAO :-"The respondent-husband filed a petition
                               seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a
                               decree of divorce. The said petition was allowed by the
                               learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide judgment
                               and decree dated 23.7.2011. The appellant-wife aggrieved
                               against the same has filed the present appeal.Both the parties are present in Court today and
                               it is agreed between them to part ways amicably.         The
                               appellant-wife does not claim any maintenance or
                               permanent alimony. She further submits that all her dowry
                               articles, which are lying in the house of Respondent No.1-
                               Gurdas Singh be returned.Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 on
                               insturctions from respondent No.1-Gurdas Singh submits
                               that whatever articles of the appellant are in his house, she
                               can take them. It is agreed that the appellant-Kuldeep Kaur
                               shall go to the house of respondent No.1-Gurdas Singh in
                               the next ten days by giving prior intimation.It is also stated that one criminal case i.e. FIR
                               No.273, dated 13.10.2006 registered at Police Station Sri
                               Muktsar Sahib is pending against the appellant-wife and
                               others for the offences punishable underSections 364,365,366,367,368,341,494,497,498,109I.P.C.            The
                               respondent No.1 has agreed to help appellant to terminate
Mehta Sachin                   the same in accordance with law.2014.04.26 16:34I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentCHANDIGARHCRM-M No.8387 of 2014                                                       -3-For filing joint petition by the parties and
                               recording statements on the basis of compromise that is
                               entered adjourned to 19.3.2014."Upon notice, Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

                 has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Deepinder

                 Brar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

                 case file.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 has submitted

                 that in view of the compromise in terms of order (Annexure P-2), the private

                 respondents (complainant and victim) have no objection if the impugned

                 FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed.          Learned State counsel has also not

                 disputed compromise in terms of order (Annexure P-2).In caseKulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR

                 (Crl.) 1052, Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed

                 on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers underSection

                 482Cr.P.C. even if the offence is not compoundable.In the instant case, the parties are related to each other and now

                 the parties wish to live in harmony and peaceful atmosphere. After a

                 prolonged litigation, they have been able to settle all the disputes amicably.Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered

                 opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed.

                 Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of

                 the FIR will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful

                 and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties toMehta Sachin2014.04.26 16:34I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentCHANDIGARHCRM-M No.8387 of 2014                                                      -4-this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large.

                 The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled

                 by the parties through compromise.In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed

                 and the impugned FIR         (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential

                 proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.April 26, 2014                                     (SURINDER GUPTA)
                 Sachin M.                                               JUDGEMehta Sachin2014.04.26 16:34I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentCHANDIGARH