Anmol Kler and another Vs State of Punjab and another

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 4 Apr 2012 Criminal Miscellaneous No. M- 3175 of 2012 (O and M)
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous No. M- 3175 of 2012 (O and M)

Hon'ble Bench

Vijender Singh Malik, J

Advocates

Manmeet Singh Rana, for the Appellant; A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab, for the State and Ms. Harpreet Kaur, complainant/respondent no. 2 with her counsel Mr. Sandeep Arora, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406, 498A

Judgement Text

Translate:

Vijender Singh Malik, J.@mdashThis is a petition brought by Anmol Kler and his mother Niranjan Kaur under the provisions of section 482 Cr.

P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 93 dated 21.10.2011 registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar for an offence punishable under

sections 406 and 498A of Indian Penal Code on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with the intervention of the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this court during the proceedings of Criminal Misc. No M-.36546 and 36543 of 2011. The terms of compromise have

come in the mediation proceedings dated 14.2.2012. On notice of the petition, the complainant has put in appearance through her counsel Mr.

Sandeep Arora, Advocate. She has herself come present in the court today with her counsel. As per the terms of the compromise, the parties have

settled all their disputes amicably and agreed to withdraw the cases filed by them against each other.

2. In a matrimonial dispute, even if the offence is non-compoundable, the FIR and the consequent proceedings could be quashed as has been held

by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426. What has to be kept in mind while allowing quashing of the FIR is

that the settlement/compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. Simultaneously, it has to be seen that the compromise is

free from undue pressure. Once it is found that the compromise is just and fair and is not brought about by undue pressure of one party on the

other, then the court has to see that the quashing would secure the ends of justice or that it would prevent abuse of process of law.

3. By the compromise all the differences between the parties have been settled. No cause of any friction is left between them and, therefore, this

compromise can certainly be said to be one arrived at to secure the ends of justice. Nothing appears to the court suggestive of pressure, much less

undue pressure on the complainant for this compromise. Undue benefit is also not seen to be taken by any party in the matter of compromise. The

complainant is, moreover, represented by a counsel of her choice and, therefore, expert legal advice is available to her. She has, moreover, come

to the court to admit the factum of compromise and to see that the requirements under the compromise were complied with. Thus, keeping in view

the fact that the parties have settled the dispute and that the settlement between them is just and fair, brought about without undue pressure from

any one and that the same would be securing the ends of justice, I accept the petition and quash FIR No. 93 dated 21.10.2011 registered at

Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498A IPC along with all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom.