Satgur Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10904 P&H

CRM-M-9283-2022 (O & M)                                          -1-

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                 CRM-M-9283-2022 (O & M)
                                 Date of decision:09.09.2022

Satgur Singh and another                              ... Petitioners
                                Vs.

State of Punjab and another                           ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL


Present:   Mr. Ishan Thakur, Advocate for
           Mr. Lakhwinder S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

           Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

           Mr. B.S. Jatana, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                         ***

SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)

CRM-31968-2022

Application is allowed as prayed for.

Judgment and decree of divorce dated 01.08.2022 passed under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is taken on record as

Annexure P-13.

Main Case

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

quashing of FIR No.333 dated 08.12.2021 under Sections 498-A and 406

of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa,

Annexure P-4, alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise deed dated 12.01.2022, Annexure P-8.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the

husband and petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law of complainant/respondent

1 of 3

CRM-M-9283-2022 (O & M) -2-

No.2. He submits that marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with

the complainant/respondent No.2 on 07.07.2018 and there is no child out

of the wedlock. He submits that due to temperamental differences, they

have been staying separately since March, 2020. Counsel submits that

FIR, Annexure P-4, is an outcome of bitterness and acrimony between the

parties, but now all the disputes have been resolved by compromise,

Annexure P-8, and marriage has been dissolved by judgment and decree,

Annexure P-13. Counsel submits that in terms of the compromise,

petitioner No.1 has paid Rs.2.20 lac by way of permanent alimony to the

complainant/respondent No.2.

Upon instructions, State counsel submits that matter is under

investigation.

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

factum of compromise as well as divorce and the receipt of entire amount

of permanent alimony.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Vide order dated 29.03.2022, this Court directed the parties to

appear before the Area Magistrate/Trial Court for getting their statements

recorded with regard to the compromise and a report was called for on the

following aspects:-

"1. the number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O. in the case;

2. the name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise;

3. the stage of trial/proceedings;

4. if the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties;

5. whether any other criminal case is pending against the accused."

2 of 3

CRM-M-9283-2022 (O & M) -3-

Report has been received and its relevant extract is reproduced

as under:-

"1. There are only two accused, who are the petitioner before the Honorable High Court, who have been nominated by the complainant/respondent. None of the accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender.

2. The respondent is the only aggrieved person, who has suffered statement in this Court.

3. Trial has not commenced as final report has not been presented.

4. The compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and out of free will.

5. As per statements of the accused, no other criminal case is pending against them."

It is evident that FIR, Annexure P-4, is an outcome of a

matrimonial dispute, which has been settled and marriage has been

dissolved. Keeping in view the above development, report of the trial

court and judgments of the Supreme Court in Gold Quest International

Private Limited Versus The State of Tamil Nadu and others (2014) 15

SCC 235 and Ramgopal and another Versus The State of Madhya

Pradesh 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, this Court is of the view that

keeping the criminal proceedings alive would be a futile exercise.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.333 dated 08.12.2021

under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station

Sadar Mansa, District Mansa, Annexure P-4, and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.

09.09.2022                                         (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal                                                JUDGE

          Whether Speaking/Reasoned             Yes/No
          Whether Reportable                    Yes/No




                                 3 of 3