CRM No. M-12773 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-12773 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2009 Neeraj Walia and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.101 dated 7th April, 2002, under
Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at
Police Station Malerkotla (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure
P-3) arrived at between the parties. The terms of the compromise read
“Later on, on the offer of compromise from the
accused persons I have agreed to do settlement to withdraw
my complaint from the court. As such today I have
received two drafts of Rs.4.30 lacs detailed as: Draft
No.186768 dated 31.1.2008 for Rs.240000/- drawn on
ICICI Bank Manimajra Chandigarh and other containing
No.882618 dated 1.2.2008 of Rs.190000/- drawn on
Punjab & Sind Bank Sector 47-D, Chandigarh from Neeraj
CRM No. M-12773 of 2008 2
Kumar and Rs.20,000/- in cash I have already received
from the aforesaid Neeraj Kumar on dated 2.2.2008. I also
do not want to continue my petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. titled as
Glory Walia versus Neeraj Kumar due to the above said
settlement. I have already withdrawn the case u/s 340
Cr.P.C. titled as Glory Walia versus Neeraj Kumar in the
Hon’ble Court of Sh. T.S. Bindra P.C.S., JMIC Malerkotla.
I will co-operate in the High Court proceedings in this case
when required after the same is filed for quashing the FIR.”
Learned counsel for the State today has placed on record an
affidavit sworn by father of the complainant which inter alias says that
the complainant has already been married and living at her matrimonial
home in U.P. It has been stated that in view of the fact that the
complainant is in U.P. and married to somebody else, it is not possible
for her to appear in court. Instead, affidavit of father of the complainant
has been placed on record who has affirmed the terms of compromise.
The said affidavit, which has been brought by ASI Satnam Singh,
Investigating Officer of the case who is present in court, is taken on
record as Mark ‘A’.
The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the
matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is
likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings, which
would be a futile exercise.
In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent
proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full
CRM No. M-12773 of 2008 3
Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.
Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
January 27, 2009