Sunny Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7784 P&H

CRM-M-45685 of 2019                                             {1}


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-M-45685 of 2019
260                                       Date of decision:26.07.2022


Sunny Kumar                                    ... Petitioner

                           Vs.


State of Punjab and another                    ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:-    Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. J.S.Bhinder, 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.15 dated 24.02.2018 registered under Sections

406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City-I, District

Mansa (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,

on the basis of compromise deed dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure P-2).

Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the

petitioner was solemnized with the complainant-respondent No.2 on

18.04.2014 at Mansa and no child was born out of the wedlock. He submits

that relations between the parties became strained and they parted ways

sometime in the year 2017. According to counsel, with the intervention of

1 of 4

CRM-M-45685 of 2019 {2}

respectables, matrimonial dispute has been settled by compromise

(Annexure P-2), permanent alimony of Rs.1.00 lakh has been paid and the

marriage has been dissolved by judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019

(Annexure P-3). He submits that in deference to the order passed by this

Court, parties have appeared before the Trial Court and their statements

have been recorded in support of the compromise.

Upon instructions from H.C.Mangat Rai, State counsel submits

that the trial is underway and is at the stage of recording of statement of the

prosecution witnesses.

Counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 has

admitted the factum of compromise and does not controvert the statement

made by counsel for the petitioner.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 23.09.2021, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their

statements and a report was called for regarding the genuineness of the

compromise as also as to whether PO proceedings are pending against any

of the parties. Report has been received from the Trial Court and its relevant

extract is as under:-

"The undersigned has carefully gone through the

statements got recorded by the complainant and accused in the

Court. Ex-facie, it transpires from the statements of the parties

(recorded before the undersigned) that they have arrived at

compromise with their free volition, without any inducement,

2 of 4

CRM-M-45685 of 2019 {3}

threat, promise, coercion or undue influence from any quarter.

Apparently, the compromise has been genuinely arrived at to

eliminate bitterness and acrimony between the parties and in

order to restore cordial relations among them.

It is further humbly submitted that this Court was further

directed to report whether any PO proceedings were pending

against any of the party. It is humbly submitted that in this

regard statement of ASI Shamsher Singh investigating officer

of the case was recorded. ASI Shamsher Singh has suffered the

statement that the case was registered on the statement of

Amandeep Kaur. He has further stated that neither the

complainant nor the accused had been declared proclaimed

offenders/absconders in the present case and no such

proceeding is pending.

From the statement suffered by ASI Shamsher Singh as

well as the statements of the parties it is found that none of the

parties has been declared proclaimed offender in the present

case and no such proceeding is pending qua them."

It is evident that the dispute is an offshoot of marital discord,

which has been settled and the marriage has been dissolved.

In view of the above, report of the Trial Court and judgments of

the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and

another (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

3 of 4

CRM-M-45685 of 2019 {4}

2021 SCC OnLine SC 966, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the

criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.15 dated

24.02.2018 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code,

1860 at Police Station City-I, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

                                               (SUVIR SEHGAL)
July 26, 2022                                      JUDGE
savita

Whether Speaking/Reasoned                                  Yes
Whether Reportable                                         Yes




                               4 of 4