Criminal Misc. No. M-27747 of 2011 (O&M) v. The State of U.T. Chandigarh & Anr.

Present: Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, APP, for respondent No.1 – UT Chandigarh. Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh got married with Manpreet Kaur-respondent No.2 on 14.01.2010. Manpreet Kaur made a complaint on 13.07.2011 against the petitioner on the ground of demand of dowry and cruelty and FIR No.200 dated 13.07.2011, under Sections 420, 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh. Subsequently, with the intervention of family members and other relatives, a compromise was effected between the parties and the matter was settled. It was decided to file petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for obtaining decree of divorce by mutual consent as they were unable to remain together and ultimately decided to live separately. As per settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of `5 Criminal Misc. No. M-27747 of 2011 (O&M) 2 lacs as permanent alimony out of which an amount of `3.5 lacs was paid to the complainant-respondent No.2 and remaining amount of `1.5 lacs was to be paid within two months from the date of compromise. It was also settled between the parties to file petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed and divorce has been granted. Learned counsel further submits that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and other complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have also been withdrawn. Vide order dated 28.02.2012, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to the compromise and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the compromise is not a result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. Trial Court was also directed to send a report along with the statements of the parties. In response to the said directions issued by this Court, a report along with the statements of the parties in this regard have been sent by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, wherein the factum of compromise has been affirmed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as complainant-respondent No.2 have affirmed the factum of Criminal Misc. No. M-27747 of 2011 (O&M) 3 compromise and the fact that the terms and conditions of the compromise have been complied with by both the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 also submits that the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant herself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the larger interest of the societal peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation, the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the fact that the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.200 dated 13.07.2011, under Sections 420, 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, namely, Sukhwinder Singh.

20.07.2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE