Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


KULWINDER KAUR & Ors v. STATE OF PUNJAB - CRM-22885-M-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 25 (26 May 2005)

Crl.Misc.No.22885-M of 2005 1

Kulwinder Kaur and others V. State of Punjab ....

Present : Mr.B.S. Sra, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.B.S. Baath, AAG, Punjab.



By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray for quashing of FIR No.152 dated 22.9.2004 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Kotakpura, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between petitioners no.1 and 2.

Petitioner no.1, is the wife, whereas petitioner no.2 is the husband.

They were married on 8.11.2002. As per the averments in the petition, 8 months after the marriage, petitioner no.1, on account of certain matrimonial differences began living separately with her parents. Petitioner no.1 filed a complaint against her husband-petitioner no.2 and his relatives, petitioners no.3 to 5, which led to the registration of the above mentioned FIR. Trial with respect to the aforementioned FIR is pending before the Judicial magistrate, Ist Class, Faridkot.

In the meantime, with the intervention of friends, relatives and well wishers, the parties arrived at a settlement. Petitioner no.2 returned the articles of Istri Dhan to petitioner no.1 and a written settlement was arrived at on Crl.Misc.No.22885-M of 2005 2

25.3.2005 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the agreement, parties agreed to resolve all their differences. Petitioner no.1 accepted the fact that she has received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as also all articles of dowry and Istri Dhan. She also agreed to withdraw a case filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also agreed to dissolve the marriage by obtaining a decree of divorce.

Pursuant to the aforementioned settlement, petitioner no.2 filed a petition for grant of divorce. Petitioner no.1 did not contest the aforementioned petition and was proceeded against ex-parte. Vide judgement and decree dated 27.8.2005, the marriage was dissolved.

During the pendency of the present petition, petitioners no.1 and 2 filed separate affidavits dated 24.10.2005 respectively, accepting the facts narrated herein before, which are taken on record.

On the basis of the aforementioned facts, counsel for the petitioners prays that the present FIR be quashed as it arises from a matrimonial dispute, which has been compromised, pursuant to a bonafide settlement. It is further contended that as the dispute has been amicably settled, the FIR be quashed so as to enable the parties to lead their lives afresh. Reliance for the above is placed on a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888.

Learned State counsel submits that as the petitioners no.1 and 2 have resolved their differences, the State would not stand in their way and, therefore, has no objection, if the FIR and all the consequential proceedings Crl.Misc.No.22885-M of 2005 3

arising therefrom are quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the settlement arrived at between the petitioners no.1 and 2.

It is no doubt true that the offences complained of, are non compoundable. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar controversy in B.S. Joshi and others' case (supra) has held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled their differences, criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute should not be permitted to linger on and should be quashed. It is, thus, apparent that the High Court, in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is empowered, where offences complained of, arise from matrimonial disputes and where parties have bonafide resolved their differences, to quash those proceedings.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the petitioners no.1 and 2 have resolved their differences by way of a bonafide settlement, to permit the prosecution of the FIR to continue, in my opinion, would be an exercise in futility and a wastage of public time and money. In view of the settlement, the complainant and her witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution case. The parties have been granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent and, therefore, there is no question of their residing together and in fact, it would be in the interest of the parties, if the present proceedings are brought to an end expeditiously, It is a fit case where this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to put an end Crl.Misc.No.22885-M of 2005 4

to these futile criminal proceedings. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.152 dated 22.9.2004, registered against petitioners no.2 to 5 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station P.S. City Kotakpura, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

24.10.2005. ( RAJIVE BHALLA )



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.