Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil Singla vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 December, 2022
CRM-M-13817-2022 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
280+144 CRM-M-13817-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision:01.12.2022
Sahil Singla ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms. Neesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P.S. Grewal, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Aarzoo Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
CRM-45785-2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Judgment and decree dated 20.09.2022 passed under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is taken on record as Annexure
P-3.
Main Case
Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.51 dated 07.03.2020 under Sections 498-A and 406
of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station City 2 Mansa, Annexure P-1,
alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise dated 12.03.2022, Annexure P-2, arrived at between the
parties.
1 of 4
CRM-M-13817-2022 (O & M) -2-
Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of petitioner
was solemnized with complainant/respondent No.2 on 12.03.2018 at
Mansa and a male child was born out of the wedlock. He submits that
due to temperamental differences, they have been staying separately since
September, 2019 and matrimonial dispute has been settled by virtue of
compromise, Annexure P-2. Counsel submits that marriage has been
dissolved by mutual consent vide judgment, Annexure P-3, and the entire
permanent alimony of Rs.14 lacs has been paid.
Upon instructions from ASI Sukhminder Singh, State counsel
submits that trial is underway, though only 01 prosecution witness has
been examined.
Counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 has admitted the
factum of compromise and does not dispute the statement made by
counsel for the petitioner.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Vide order dated 01.04.2022, this Court directed the parties to
appear before the Trial Court/Area Magistrate for recording of their
statements and a report was called for, which has been received and its
relevant extract is as under:-
"1t is most respectfully submitted that in
compliance to the order dated 01.04.2022, passed
by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
CRM-M-13817 of 2022, the statement of ASI
Gurcharan Singh No. 775/Mansa of P.S. City-II
dated 07.03.2020, which was registered U/S 498-A,
406 IPC at P.S. City-II Mansa. According to his
statement, the particulars of parties to this case are
as under:
2 of 4
CRM-M-13817-2022 (O & M) -3-
Name of affected person Name of accused
Neetika Garg wife of Sahil Sahil Singla son of Raj
Singla son of Raj Kumar, Kumar, resident of
resident of Sidhu Street, Sidhu Street, Ward
Ward No.10, Lalluana No.10, Lalluana road
road Mansa, Tehsil and Mansa, Tehsil and
District Mansa and District Mansa.
daughter of Munish Kumar
now resident of Dina Nath
Tyre Wali Gali, near Bus
Stand Mansa, Tehsil and
District Mansa.
(complainant and affected
person)
It is further submitted by him that the
Investigation of this case has been completed and as
per records, no accused has been got declared as
Proclaimed Offender in this case.
The challan/final investigation report U/s
173 Cr.P.C has been presented in Court in this case
and the trial is at the stage of recording the evidence
of prosecution witnesses.
Statement of affected person Neetika Garg
and statement of accused Sahil Singla recorded qua
compromise. From the statements of complainant
Neetika Garg and statement of accused Sahil Singla,
it makes out that the parties of the present petition
have compromised the matter with their free will and
full senses, for their betterment. So this compromise
between the parties to the petition appears to be
genuine & valid and outcome of free consent of the
parties and is without coercion from any quarter."
It is evident that FIR, Annexure P-1, is an outcome of a
matrimonial dispute, which has been amicably settled and the parties
have parted ways. Keeping in view the above development, report of the
trial court and judgments of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others
Versus State of Haryana and another (2003) 2 RCR (Criminal) 888,
and Narinder Singh Versus State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, this
Court is of the view that keeping the criminal proceedings alive would
not serve any purpose.
3 of 4
CRM-M-13817-2022 (O & M) -4-
Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.51 dated 07.03.2020
under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station
City 2 Mansa, Annexure P-1, and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.
01.12.2022 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
