Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 27 docs - [View All]
B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003
Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 493 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 320 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Chand Sharma And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 September, 2013
                                In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                                         ......


                                   (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012 (O&M)
                                                        .....
                                                                    Date of decision:3.9.2013

                                           Prem Chand Sharma and others
                                                                                    ...Petitioners
                                                          v.

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

                                   (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-13937 of 2012 (O&M)
                                                         .....

                                                     Kuldip Kaur
                                                                                     ...Petitioner
                                                          v.

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

                                   (3) Criminal Misc. No.M-15963 of 2012 (O&M)
                                                         .....

                                              Paramjit Kaur and another
                                                                                    ...Petitioners
                                                          v.

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


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


                     Present:      Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in Criminal
                                   Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012.

                                   Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners in Criminal
                                   Misc. Nos.M-13937 and 15963 of 2012.

                                   Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
                                   for the respondent-State.
Parmar Harpal Singh
2013.09.17 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
                                                         Cr. Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012 (O&M)
                                                        [2]


                                  Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the complainant-
                                  respondent No.2.
                                                       .....

                     Inderjit Singh, J.

This order will dispose of the above mentioned three criminal miscellaneous petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012 filed by Prem Chand Sharma, Bahadur Singh and Jasmer Kaur; Criminal Misc. No.M-13937 of 2012 filed by Kuldip Kaur and Criminal Misc. No.M- 15963 of 2012 filed by Paramjit Kaur and Iqbal Singh, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No.49 dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure-P.1) pending before the Court of Sh. Balwant Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 375(4), 376, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 493, 494, 495, 496, 364(A), 441, 442, 506 and 120-B IPC as well as the summoning order dated 23.1.2012 (Annexure-P.4) and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The brief facts of the cases are that the marriage of Maninder Kaur complainant-respondent No.2 was solemnized with Gurtej Singh on 13.10.1996 as per the Sikh rites. From this wedlock a son, namely, Gurashish Singh was born on 1.8.1997. Kuldip Kaur (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-13937 of 2012) is married sister-in-law of the complainant, who got married much earlier to the marriage of the complainant. Prem Chand Sharma, Bahadur Singh and Jasmer Kaur (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012) are mediator, father- in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant. Paramjit Kaur Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.17 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012 (O&M) [3] and Iqbal Singh (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-15963 of 2012) are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant. Paramjit Kaur petitioner No.1 got married with Iqbal Singh petitioner No.2 much earlier to the marriage of the complainant with Gurtej Singh.

Complainant Maninder Kaur filed complaint No.49 on 5.8.2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala due to matrimonial dispute arisen between the parties and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala vide order dated 23.1.2012 finding prima-facie case against the accused-petitioners summoned them to face trial for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 375(4), 376, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 494, 495 and 506 IPC. Complainant filed criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala for addition of left out offences under Sections 493, 364A, 441, 442 and 120-B IPC in the order dated 23.1.2012 passed by the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala vide order dated 9.3.2012 finding no merit in the criminal revision dismissed the same.

During the course of proceedings before this Court, it was stated that the parties are ready to settle their dispute amicably and the case was put before the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre of this Court. The parties have entered into a compromise vide compromise deed dated 23.8.2013, wherein it has been mentioned that with the intervention of common friends and respectable persons of the parties, the parties have compromised their matters and the same have been settled in the manner as stated in the compromise deed, which has been placed on record. Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.17 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012 (O&M) [4] It is a matrimonial dispute. The complaint has been filed by Maninder Kaur wife of Gurtej Singh, accused No.1. Maninder Kaur and Gurtej Singh have entered into a compromise and copy of the compromise deed has been placed on the record today in these proceedings. Maninder Kaur and Gurtej Singh are also present in the Court along with their counsel. Gurtej Singh husband made statement in the Court that he will vacate the house situated at Bathinda within one month from today. As the complaint has arisen from the matrimonial dispute between Maninder Kaur and Gurtej Singh and they have settled their dispute and agreed to withdraw all the proceedings, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Cr.) 888, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed qua the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has held that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power to quash the proceedings which would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise such power or not. It was observed that special features in matrimonial matters are evident and it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for the complainant- respondent No.2, admit the factum of compromise. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab submits that in case the parties have indeed Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.17 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012 (O&M) [5] 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 Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (supra).

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for respondent No.1-State as well as learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2.

Keeping in view the compromise effected between the parties, the matrimonial dispute has amicably been sorted out. Since the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

The Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (supra), has held that in matrimonial dispute inherent powers can be exercised to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice. In fact it has been emphasized that the parties to matrimonial dispute should be encouraged to compromise the matter.

A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges), has held that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. The exercise of jurisdiction to quash FIR in the matter of criminal proceedings is not limited to matrimonial cases alone and this Court has wide powers to quash criminal proceedings even in cases of non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The power undoubtedly is to be exercised sparingly Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.17 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-12098 of 2012 (O&M) [6] and with circumspection. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was emphasized that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common-sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings pending trial in the Courts.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and complaint No.49 dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure-P.1) pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala for the offences under Sections 498- A, 406, 420, 375(4), 376, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 493, 494, 495, 496, 364(A), 441, 442, 506 and 120-B IPC as well as the summoning order dated 23.1.2012 (Annexure-P.4) and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners shall stand quashed. September 3, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.09.17 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh