Des Raj & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 20 Oct 2011
- Bench
- RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Outcome
Disposed of
Both the petitions are disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.G.S. Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr.Vivek Kathuria, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions namely, CRM-M-13835 of 2011 titled as “Des Raj and another Vs. State of Punjab and another” (hereinafter referred as Ist petition) and CRM-M-14147 of 2011 titled as “Pawan Kumar Jalota Vs. State of Punjab and another” (hereinafter referred as IInd petition) in which the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.52 dated 11.03.2011 under Sections 323, 324 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (which was added later on) at Police Station Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar. CRM-M-13835 & 14147 of 2011 - 2 – In the Ist petition, the arrest of the petitioners were stayed on
06.5.2011 whereas in the IInd petition, the arrest of the petitioner was stayed on 19.5.2011. On the last date of hearing i.e. 7.9.2011, the following order was passed by this Court: “In these two cases, the petitioner(s) have prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.52 dated 11.3.2011 registered under Sections 323, 324, 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. This matter was placed before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court with the consent of both the parties to explore the possibility of a compromise but the mediation proceedings had failed and the matter has been placed before this Court for a decision on merits. However, during the course of hearing, both the parties have decided to part ways and have agreed at a sum of `5,50,000/- as a lump sum payment. This amount shall be paid by the petitioners’ side to the complainant (wife) as full and final settlement of her all claims of permanent alimony etc. and the petitioner(s) shall file an appropriate application before this Court for the purpose of quashing of the FIR and both the parties would file a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the purpose of seeking divorce by mutual CRM-M-13835 & 14147 of 2011 - 3 – consent.
Operative part
The parties are directed to bring on record a written compromise. Adjourned to 20.10.2011. Interim order to continue. On the next date of hearing, the petitioner(s) shall bring the amount of `5,50,000/- cheque/cash/demand draft which is to be paid to the complainant.” In terms of the aforesaid, the petitioners have given the demand draft of `5,50,000/- to the complainant, who is present in Court, towards full and final settlement of all claims of the complainant, who are now supposed to file petition for quashing of the FIR and a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the purpose of seeking divorce by mutual consent. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 06.5.2011 passed in the Ist petition (CRM-M-13835 of 2011 titled as “Des Raj and another Vs. State of Punjab and another”) and order dated 19.5.2011 passed in the IInd petition (CRM-M-14147 of 2011 titled as “Pawan Kumar Jalota Vs. State of Punjab and another”) are hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. Both the petitions are disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. OCTOBER 20, 2011 Vivek (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Both the petitions are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — ss. 3, 4; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 20 Oct 2011. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.