Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAVINDER PAL SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Davinder Pal Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Anr - CRM-16643-M-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 11683 (1 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRIMINAL MISC.NO.16643 M of 2005

DATE OF DECISION: December 07, 2006

Davinder Pal Singh and others

.....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

....Respondents

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2046 OF 2003

Parvinder Kaur and others

.....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate.

Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

By this common order, both the abovesaid petitions are being decided.

Crl.M.No.16643 M of 2005 :{ 2 }:

Quashing of FIR No.557 dated 23.12.2001 registered at Police Station City yamuna Nagar under Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC has been sought in Criminal Misc.No.16643 M of 2006 on the basis of compromise between the parties.

Petitioner No.1, Davinder Pal married Smt.Parvinder Kaur, respondent No.2, on 5.12.1999. Soon thereafter, the marriage appears to have got into trouble. A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, which was sent to police authorities and on the basis thereof, impugned FIR was registered at Police Station, Yamuna Nagar. It is alleged that father of respondent No.2 gave Istri Dhan to the petitioners at the time of the marriage of his daughter. Allegations are that petitioners started maltreating respondent No.2 besides raising a demand for Maruti Car and Rs.one lac in cash. Married couple separated. Efforts were made to make this marriage work and respondent No.2 went to her matrimonial home on 25.1.2001. Still, they could not adjust and it led to registration of a case referred to herein before. The petitioners' family was equal to the task and responded by registering a case under Sections 419, 120-B IPC against respondent No.2. Charges under Sections 419, 120-B IPC was framed against respondent No.2 and some of her family members. They impugned the same by filing Criminal Revision No.2046 of 2003, which is also being disposed of this common order.

A petition, seeking divorce was earlier filed by respondent No.2.

This petition was allowed exparte and decree of divorce granted in favour of respondent No.2. As it usually happens, the tempers have cooled down and parties have realised the futility of continuing the Crl.M.No.16643 M of 2005 :{ 3 }:

combat. Relative and friends also intervened and compromise has resulted. It is beyond comprehension as to why this could not have been thought initially when the parties went after each other. In any case, the written compromise dated 12.2.2005 is annexed as Annexure P-3. A perusal of the compromise would show that the petitioners' side has agreed to withdraw the criminal case filed against respondent No.2. This clause of the agreement, however, could not be complied with as proceedings arising out of this FIR were stayed by this Court. As per this compromise, respondent No.2 had agreed to withdraw the impugned FIR and also the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Daughter, named Anni, is to remain with respondent No.2 and the petitioners have agreed not to seek custody of the child. A sum of Rs.75,000/- has been paid to respondent No.2, which is to be a full and final settlement. The parties are present in person before me and have confirmed that they have reached the above noted compromise and would stand by that.

Since the matrimonial dispute and differences between the parties have been amicably settled to the entire satisfaction of respective parties, it will be futile to allow any proceedings to continue in the impugned FIR. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute can be ordered to be quashed. No useful purpose will be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.

Criminal Misc. No.16643 M of 2006 is as such allowed Crl.M.No.16643 M of 2005 :{ 4 }:

and FIR No.557 dated 23.12.2001 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

Since the parties have decided to start a fresh in life, the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 123 dated 18.12.2002, under Sections 420/120-B IPC, Police Station Nihalsinghwala, District Moga, against respondent No.2 also need to be brought to an end.

This is one of the clause of the compromise. There is no petition before me for quashing this FIR and respondent No.2 is in revision against the charge but to do complete justice, these proceedings must also end. I think, this purpose can be achieved by allowing the revision petition and by quashing the charge framed against respondent No.2 and others. Accordingly, this revision is allowed and order framing the charge is hereby quashed in view of the compromise. This FIR should be deemed to be quashed and would not lead to any further proceedings. This would bring to an end any proceedings that are in progress against respondent No.2 and her family members.

December 07, 2006 ( RANJIT SINGH )

khurmi JUDGE


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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