High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Surinder Kumar Narwal v. State of Punjab & another - CRM-44961-m-2005  RD-P&H 4661 (24 July 2006)
1. Crl.Misc.No. 44961.M of 2005 Surinder Kumar Narwal vs State of Punjab & another
2. Crl.Misc.No.27263.M of 2006 Satish Kumar & others vs State of Punjab & others Present : Mr.Puneesh Jindia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 & 3.
This order shall dispose of Crl.Misc.No.44961.M of 2005 and Crl.Misc.No.27263.M of 2006.
Prayer in these petitions is for quashing of FIR No.118, dated 8.5.2005, registered under Sections 498-A/406/506/120-B of the IPC, at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala, on the basis of a settlement, dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure P-1).
The marriage between Satish Kumar (petitioner No.1 in Crl.Misc.No.27263.M of 2006) and Neeraj Kumari-respondent No.3, was solemnized on 30.4.2004. Matrimonial differences between Surinder Kumar Narwal and Neeraj Kumari led respondent No.2 (father of Neeraj Kumari) to lodge the present FIR alleging commission of matrimonial offences by the petitioners, who are Neeraj Kumari's husband, mother-in- law, sister-in-law and father-in-law. Thereafter, with the intervention of friends, relatives and family members, the feuding parties arrived at a Crl.Misc.No.44961.M of 2005 ::2::
compromise, dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 resolved to live separately and seek dissolution of their marriage by obtaining a decree of divorce. They also agreed that a petition for quashing of the FIR be filed before the High Court. An amount of Rs.5.25 lacs was agreed to be paid to Smt.Neeraj Kumari. This amount was entrusted to one Shri L.M.Chopra, Advocate, for being paid to Neeraj Kumari, after quashing of the FIR. Respondent No.3-Neeraj Kumari filed a petition, for the grant of divorce, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Satish Kumar Karwal was proceeded against exparte. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2005, the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala granted a decree of divorce, thus, putting an end to the marriage.
Smt. Neeraj Kumari has filed an affidavit, dated 25.7.2006, acknowledging the correctness of the compromise. She has deposed therein that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Her father, Surinder Pal Bagga, the complainant-respondent No.2, is present in Court and states that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
On the basis of the aforementioned facts, counsel for the petitioners, as also counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 contend that as parties have resolved their matrimonial differences, by way of a bona fide settlement, a decree of divorce has been granted and parties have decided to start their separate lives afresh, it would be in the interest of justice and in the interest of parties that the FIR, as also all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, be quashed.
Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 have resolved their differences, the State would not stand in their way and, therefore, has no objection, if the FIR and all Crl.Misc.No.44961.M of 2005 ::3::
subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, are quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, as also the settlement.
As is apparent from the narrative of facts, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 have resolved their differences, by way of a bona fide written settlement (Annexure P-1). Their marriage has come to an end by the grant of a divorce by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide his judgment and decree dated 17.11.2005. An amount of Rs.5.25 lacs, entrusted to one Shri L.M.Chopra, Advocate, is to be paid to respondent No.3, upon quashing of the present FIR. The parties have decided not to pursue the present litigation and to lead separate lives afresh, by bringing this painful chapter in their lives to an end. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where parties have resolved their differences, by way of a bona fide 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's witnesses would not support the prosecution. It is a fit case where this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, to put an end to these futile criminal proceedings.
In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.118, dated 8.5.2005, registered under Sections 498- A/406/506/120-B of the IPC, at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala., as also all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, are quashed.
The amount of Rs.5.25 lacs has been entrusted by the petitioners to Mr.L.M.Chopra, Advocate, Phagwara. He is directed to hand Crl.Misc.No.44961.M of 2005 ::4::
over the aforementioned amount to Smt. Neeraj Kumari forthwith.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
July 25, 2006. JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.