IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDGIARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 2014 of 2009
Date of decision: March 25, 2009
Sumit Kumar and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
Present: Mr. Jitender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
S.S. SARON, J.
Affidavit of Smt. Ritu (respondent No.2) filed in Court today is taken
on record.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 30.3.2006
(Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar for the
offences under Sections 406, 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise that has
been entered into between the parties.
Respondent No.2 Smt. Ritu was married with petitioner No1. On
account of the matrimonial dispute between them, FIR (Annexure P1) was
registered on the complaint of respondent No.2. With the intervention of relatives
and friends, the dispute has been amicably settled and the parties have been decided
to part their ways.
Learned counsel for the parties have stated that a joint petition under
Crl. Misc. No. M- 2014 of 2009 [2]
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed seeking dissolution of
the marriage solemnized between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 which is
pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar.
The complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Ritu is present in Court and is
identified by her counsel Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate. It is stated by her that she
has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that she is making a statement of
her own free will and desire and without any kind of undue influence.
The draft for an amount of Rs.3 lacs has been prepared and the same is
to be given to respondent No.2 Smt. Ritu on 30.3.2009 in proceedings under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the
matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled, the State would have no serious
objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675
wherein it was held that in respect of matrimonial disputes, there should be an effort
to encourage genuine settlements. Besides, it was held that quashing of criminal
proceedings or FIR in the cases of matrimonial dispute is permissible and Section
320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482
CrPC. Thus the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in the case of a matrimonial dispute. In the
present case, the matrimonial dispute having been amicably settled, no useful
purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal prosecution.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be
noticed that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.
A draft for an amount of Rs.3 lacs has been prepared which is to be given to
respondent No.2-complainant. A joint petition under Section 13-B has also been
Crl. Misc. No. M- 2014 of 2009 [3]
filed. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment of B.S. Joshi’s case (Supra),
the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and FIR
No.101 dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Division No.6,
Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A/34 IPC and all consequential
and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed.
(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
March 25, 2009
amit