Crl. Misc.No. M-7898 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc. No. M-7898 of 2009
Date of Decision: 18 - 4 - 2009
Kamaljit Kaur .....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Mega Lok Adalat was held on 20th and 21st of December, 2008.
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar communicated to the District and
Sessions Judge, Ropar that parties to case FIR No.50 dated 24.4.2006
registered at Police Station Kurali under Section 309 IPC have amicably
resolved the dispute. In the present case complainant is Parshotam Singh.
Satnam Singh is son of Parshotam Singh. The FIR was registered on the
statement of complainant Parshotam Singh that on 24.4.2006 at about 10.00
A.M. in the area of Village Siswan accused Kamaljit Kaur attempted to
commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. The communication of the
Judicial Magistrate read as under:-
“It is most respectfully submits that a criminal case
Crl. Misc.No. M-7898 of 2009 [2]
bearing Police Challan no.RT-174/19.05.06/15.12.2007, titled
as State Vs. Kamaljit Kaur, FIR No.50/24.04.2006 under
Section 309 of the IPC is pending before the court of
undersigned. The same has been registered on the statement of
complainant Parshotam Singh that on 24.04.2006 at about
10.00 AM in the area of village Siswan the accused attempted
to commit suicide and poured Kerosene oil on herself. During
the trial, complainant Parshotam Singh moved an application
for compounding the offences on 19.12.2008 and accordingly
the file was put up before the Mega Lok Adalat held on
20.12.2008 where complainant Parshotam Singh, eye witness
Satnam Singh and accused Kamaljit Kaur had made statements
that they have compromised the matter. Since, the offence
under Section 309 of the IPC is non compoundable under the
provisions of Section 320 of the Cr PC, therefore, the matter is
brought before your honour for kind perusal and further orders
please.”
Mega Lok Adalat which consist of the Presiding Officer and
Members recorded the statements of Satnam Singh, Parshotam Singh
complainant and Kamaljit Kaur accused. It was noticed in the statements
that parties to the marriage had obtained divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It had been recommended by the
Lok Adalat that in the present case, proceedings be quashed.
The request of the Lok Adalat has been forwarded to this Court
by Administrative Judge of Ropar Sessions Division. The Registry has
treated the same on judicial side and had put up the same before this Court.
Crl. Misc.No. M-7898 of 2009 [3]
Since the statements have been recorded by the Lok Adalat and
recommendation has been made by the Presiding Officer who is Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class and Members and the same has been forwarded by the
Administrative Judge, taking into account that matrimonial dispute has been
amicably settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will serve no useful
purpose.
It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v.
State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888 and a Full Bench judgment
of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and
another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that if a matrimonial dispute has
been resolved, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the
criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the ratio of law in
B.S.Joshi’s case (supra) and Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra), the
impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
Petition stands disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
April 18, 2009. JUDGE
RC