Neeraj Walia And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 January, 2009

 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

as under:-

“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 I have already withdrawn the case u/s 340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.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
January 27, 2009
‘rajpal’