Mr. Parikshit Saini vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 3790 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPCRL No. 2028 of 2022

                                 Hon'ble S.K. Mishra, J.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

Heard.

The contents of the FIR reveal a prima facie case of the offences as alleged against the petitioners. So in view of the settled principles of law as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases like R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online 315, the petitioners are not making out a case for quashing of the FIR. On the last date of listing, on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that marriage between complainant and petitioner no. 1 has solemnized very recently and there is statable probability of compromise, this Court issued notice to the respondent and granted interim order and directed the parties to remain present before the Court for referring the case to the mediation.

However, it is borne out from the record that in spite of the sufficient notice upon the respondent, she did not turn up. Mediation and conciliation are voluntary act. It cannot be imposed upon any person. This Court is of the further opinion that no purpose will be served to simply adjourn the matter to another date by extending interim order passed by us on the last date.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all the offences mentioned in the FIR are punishable with a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, hence, ratio of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 is squarely covered.

Be that as it may, the learned A.G.A. would submit that since the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed in the subsequent judgment of Satyendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022 SCC Online SC 825, there is no need for this Court to pass repeated directions to follow the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She would further submit that generally in matrimonial cases, if the punishment as prescribed for the offences is not exceeding seven years then the police as well as the Magistrates are following the principle as laid down in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.

Interim order dated 03.11.2022 stands vacated.

(S.K. Mishra, J.) 24.11.2022 (Grant certified copies as per rules) PV