VED PARKASH TERHAN & ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Ved Parkash Terhan & Anr v. State of Punjab & Anr - CRM-73870-M-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 796 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRIMINAL MISC.NO.73870 M OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 29, 2007

Ved Parkash Terhan and another

.....Petitiones

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

....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. P.B.S.Goraya, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Ms. Niloffer A. Parveen, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. G. K. Mann, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Prayer made in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.99 dated 14.5.2000 under Sections 498A, 406, 342, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar, on the basis of a compromise.

The petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2, Vani Trehan, who was married to Garish Trehan son of the petitioners.

This marriage could not work and differences arose between the couple.

Criminal Misc.No.73870 M of 2006 :{ 2 }: Respondent No.2 is alleged to have left the matrimonial house with the minor daughter. During the pendency of the case, the husband, Garish Trehan, died in June 2000. It is stated that number of civil and criminal litigations are pending between the parties. The matter was fixed before Lok Adalat of this Court, where a compromise/settlement deed was prepared to the satisfaction of both the sides. It was agreed that both the parties would settled the dispute in regard to movable as well as immovable property and that they would not have any objection in case the criminal matters, like the present FIR, are quashed. The copy of the compromise reached before the Lok Adalat has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The statement in this regard made by respondent No.2, Vani Trehan, is also part of compromise, Annexure P-1.

Ms.G.K.Mann, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, has submitted before the Court that the matter indeed has been compromised between the parties and the settlement deed before Lok Adalat exhibited on record is the one which contains the terms of settlement between the parties. It is also conceded by the counsel that respondent No.2 would not have any objection in case the present FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed. Even otherwise 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. Since the parties have settled the issue, no useful purpose will be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.

Criminal Misc.No.73870 M of 2006 :{ 3 }: This petition is as such allowed and FIR No.99 dated 14.5.2000 under Sections 498A, 406, 342, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

January 29, 2007 ( RANJIT SINGH )

khurmi 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 |

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