Bhupinder Singh vs Ut Chandigarh And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7296 P&H

CRM-M-44642 of 2021                                                  {1}


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

263                                            CRM-M-44642 of 2021
                                               Date of decision:20.07.2022


Bhupinder Singh                                     ... Petitioner

                           Vs.


U.T.Chandigarh and another                          ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:-    Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Addl.P.P., U.T.Chandigarh.

             Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for
             Mr. Vishal, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

seeking quashing of FIR No.28 dated 07.04.2017 registered under Sections

406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Women Police Station,

Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 02.09.2021

(Annexure P-2).

Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of petitioner

was solemnized with the complainant-respondent No.2 on 11.02.2015 and a

child was born out of the wedlock in December, 2015. He submits that due

1 of 3

CRM-M-44642 of 2021 {2}

to temperamental differences, the parties could not adjust with each other

and have been residing separately since May, 2016. He states that the

matrimonial dispute has been settled by compromise (Annexure P-2) and

marriage has been dissolved by mutual consent, vide judgment and decree

dated 22.03.2022 (Annexure A-3). Counsel submits that all claims inter se

parties have been settled and as per compromise, custody of the child is to

remain with the complainant-respondent No.2.

Upon instructions from ASI Ram Lubhaya, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, U.T.Chandigarh submits that trial has started, though no

prosecution witness has been examined.

Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has admitted the

factum of compromise and does not oppose the prayer made in the petition.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 27.10.2021, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Area Magistrate/Trial Court to get their statements

recorded in support of the compromise and a report was called for from the

Court concerned regarding genuineness of the compromise and also as to

whether any P.O. proceedings are pending against any of the parties. As per

the report, the matter has been compromised without any pressure, coercion

or undue influence and the complainant does not have any objection to the

quashing of FIR. It has also been reported that the compromise is genuine

and none of the parties have been declared as P.O.

Matrimonial dispute has been resolved and marriage of the

estranged couple has been dissolved by mutual consent. In view of this

2 of 3

CRM-M-44642 of 2021 {3}

development, report of the Trial Court and judgments of the Supreme Court

in Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and

Ramgopal and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 (4)

RCR (Criminal) 322, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal

proceedings would be an exercise in futility, rather setting aside them would

enable the parties to lead a peaceful life.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.28 dated

07.04.2017 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code,

1860 at Women Police Station, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

                                               (SUVIR SEHGAL)
July 20, 2022                                      JUDGE
savita

Whether Speaking/Reasoned                                  Yes
Whether Reportable                                         Yes




                                3 of 3