Neeraj & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of…
Judgment
Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for the respondent – State Ms Preeti Sharma, respondent No. 2 -.-
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 203 dated 12.06.2012 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Amritsar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In the present case, the marital discord between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 led to filing of the said FIR. As per the petitioner who CRM No. M 7847 of 2012 2 is present in the Court, the matter has been compromised. He is also present in Court along with his counsel and got his statement recorded separately, stating therein that the matter has been compromised and in pursuance to the said compromise, he will also file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 within a one month from today and shall pay Rs.3,50,000/- to respondent No.
2-Preeti at the time of second motion of the said petition i.e at the time when both the parties shall make statement that they have no objection to the passing of the decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. Complainant is also present in Court and has filed her affidavit stating therein that the aforesaid FIR was got lodged by her and now othe matter has been compromised amicably and she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. In her said affidavit, she also undertook to file the petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act shortly after the quashing of the said FIR. From the above, it is clear that the parties have amicably compromised the matter and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour.
It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their CRM No. M 7847 of 2012 3 genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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 utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.
Operative part
This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Taking into account the allegations, statement of Petitioner No. 1 recorded in the Court as well as affidavit of the complainant/respondent No. 2, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 203 dated 12.06.2012 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Petitioner-Neeraj shall remain bound by his statement made CRM No. M 7847 of 2012 4 in the Court. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
01.05.2012 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 01 May 2012. The bench was NIRMALJIT KAUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.