Punjab-Haryana High CourtParamjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 May, 2014Author:Inderjit SinghBench:Inderjit SinghIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                                         ......


                                          Criminal Misc. No.M-9322 of 2014
                                                         .....

                                                                      Date of decision:26.5.2014


                                               Paramjit Singh and others
                                                                                     .....Petitioners
                                                           v.

                                             State of Punjab and another
                                                                                   .....Respondents
                                                          ....


                     Coram:        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
                                                         .....


                     Present:      Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                   Mr. Deepak Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
                                   for the respondent-State.

                                   Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for the complainant-
                                   respondent No.2.
                                                         .....

                     Inderjit Singh, J.This petition has been filed underSection 482Cr.P.C.

                     praying for quashing of FIR No.348 dated 12.12.2013 (Annexure-P.1)

                     registered for the offences underSections 307,498-A,406,323,325and34IPC at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar and all subsequent

                     proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise.The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with

                     petitioner No.1 Paramjit Singh on 12.4.2010.             However, due to

                     temperamental differences between the parties, matrimonial dispute arose

                     and the above said FIR was registered for the above mentioned offencesParmar Harpal Singh2014.05.29 10:20I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarhCr. Misc. No.M-9322 of 2014[2]against the petitioners. Her mother-in-law Kashmir Kaur asked her son

                     Karamjit Singh alias Heera to put the wooden grinder upon her head, then

                     the whole matter would be finished. In the meanwhile, Karamjit Singh

                     gave a wooden grinder blow upon her, which struck upon her head and

                     she fell down. Then her father-in-law Santokh Singh stated that throw her

                     upon the roof. Karamjit Singh alias Heera and her husband Paramjit

                     Singh thrown her from the roof with the intention to kill her. Due to that

                     reason, she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness,

                     she was in Dhariwal Hospital. She received injuries on her right foot

                     joint, forehead and backbone and was referred to Gurunanak Dev

                     Hospital.   Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the

                     matrimonial dispute has amicably been resolved and the petitioners have

                     given undertaking that they will not harass/torture/humiliate her in future

                     and she has been rehabilitated in the matrimonial home and all the

                     petitioners will treat her with love and affection and provide her all the

                     amenities of life as per their status.    As respondent No.2 has been

                     rehabilitated in her in-laws' family with respect and honour, thus no

                     grievance remained between the parties.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no injury on

                     the person of the complainant has been declared as dangerous to life,

                     hence no offence underSection 307IPC is made out.Learned counsel for respondents No.2 stated that she has

                     been residing with her husband at her matrimonial home as the

                     matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved and she has entered into aParmar Harpal Singh2014.05.29 10:20I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarhCr. Misc. No.M-9322 of 2014[3]compromise with the petitioners.Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a

                     compromise, they were directed to appear before learned Chief Judicial

                     Magistrate, Amritsar for getting their statements recorded in support of the

                     compromise. After doing the needful, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

                     has sent her report dated 22.5.2014 submitting that the compromise

                     arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from

                     any one and the same is genuine one. Complainant Gurpreet Kaur has

                     stated that the matter has been compromised with the accused without any

                     pressure and undue influence. She has joined the society of her husband

                     Paramjit Singh and now she along with her minor children is residing in

                     her in-laws' house and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions

                     from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for complainant-

                     respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case

                     the parties have indeed settled their matrimonial dispute, the State would

                     have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down

                     by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.I have gone through the record and have heard learned

                     counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General,

                     Punjab and learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2.In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a

                     loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between

                     the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. AfterParmar Harpal Singh2014.05.29 10:20I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarhCr. Misc. No.M-9322 of 2014[4]considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that

                     both the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute,

                     continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the

                     chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.The Hon'ble Supreme Court inGian Singh v. State of Punjab

                     and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 543, has held that the inherent

                     jurisdiction of this Court underSection 482Cr.P.C. can be exercised to

                     quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases arising from

                     commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like

                     transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry

                     etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or

                     personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even

                     though they are not compoundable.Therefore, keeping in view the fact

                     that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled and the lawlaid

                     down inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and another(supra), this petition is

                     allowed and FIR No.348 dated 12.12.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for

                     the offences underSections 307,498-A,406,323,325and34IPC at

                     Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar and all subsequent

                     proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.


                     May 26, 2014.                               (Inderjit Singh)
                                                                       Judge
                     *hsp*Parmar Harpal Singh2014.05.29 10:20I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentChandigarh