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


Rakesh Kumar alias Rinku v. State of Punjab & Anr - CRM-49430.m-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3219 (17 May 2006)

Crl.Misc.No.49430.M of 2005 -:1:-


DATE OF DECISION : 4.7.2005.

Rakesh Kumar alias Rinku Vs State of Punjab and another QUORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA.

Present : Mr.Rajiv Vij, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.Satinder.S.Randhawa,AAG, Punjab

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate,

For respondent No.2.


By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No.96, dated 2.7.2003, registered under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar.

As per the FIR, the complainant (respondent No.2) alleged commission of offences, under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, by the petitioners. However, with the intervention of the relatives and respectables, the dispute between the parties was settled and both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage. As a consequence, a petition, for grant of a decree of divorce, by mutual Crl.Misc.No.49430.M of 2005 -:2:-

consent, was filed before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Vide judgment and decree, dated 9.8.2004, the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar accepted the petition and dissolved the marriage, in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, stating therein that in view of the compromise between the parties dated 2.8.2004 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner and the complainant have agreed not only to dissolve the marriage but also not to proceed with any pending litigation. On the basis of the aforementioned compromise, counsel for the petitioner and the complainant submit that the parties have settled their matrimonial differences. The complainant does not wish to prosecute the FIR and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice and in the interest of the parties, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 888, to quash the present FIR, as also all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom so as to bring to an end this unfortunate matrimonial dispute.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The petitioner and the complainant are present in Court. Their statements have been recorded separately.

A perusal of the statement, made by respondent No.2 (complainant) reveals that she has accepted the facts, averred in the petition, has acknowledged the factum of compromise, grant of decree of a divorce by mutual consent, and Crl.Misc.No.49430.M of 2005 -:3:-

has categorically stated that she does not wish to proceed with the present FIR.

She has also prayed that the present proceedings be quashed so as to enable her to start her life afresh.

It is no doubt true that the offences complained of, are non- compoundable. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the similar controversy, in B.S.Joshi and others' case (supra), has held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes, the Courts, where parties have settled such dispute, in exercise of powers, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be within their rights to quash proceedings emanating from matrimonial disputes. A perusal of the facts of the present case reveal that the petitioner (husband) and respondent No.2 (wife) have, of their own free volition, obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The said decree has attained finality. Parties have resolved their disputes and, therefore, to permit the prosecution to carry on would, in my opinion, 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. 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 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. 96, dated 2.7.2003, registered under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Division No.3, Crl.Misc.No.49430.M of 2005 -:4:-

Jalandhar, as also consequential proceedings are quashed.


July 04, 2005. JUDGE



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.