Skip to content


Present: Ms.G.K.Mann Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantPresent: Ms.G.K.Mann Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
.....2014.05.17 10:28 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m-5389-2011 2 with sham singh son of rajinder kaur, respondent no.2 on 14.12.2006. there arose marital differences between tejinder kaur and sham singh as tejinder kaur was being harassed and tortured at the hands of her husband and his family members and eventually she was turned out of the matrimonial home. due to this, a number of cases / litigation cropped up between the two families, both civil and criminal. the dispute between tejinder kaur and sham singh was referred to the mediation and conciliation centre of this court in crm-m-5767-2011. the entire dispute between the parties was settled with the intervention of mediator vide agreement / compromise annexure p4 dated 21.03.2011. it is argued with.....
Judgment:

CRM-M-5389-2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5389-2011(O&M) Date of decision :

09. 05.2014 Suba Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab. REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CRM-49312-2013 & CRM-6369-2014 Allowed as prayed for. Affidavits of petitioner No.1 & 2 along with Annexures P5 to P9 are taken on record. CRM-M-5389-2011 The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No.55 dated 22.11.2010 registered in Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana for offence punishable under Sections 452, 379, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Annexure P3) and proceedings emanating therefrom. Counsel for the petitioners contends that Tejinder Kaur, daughter of petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioners No.2 to 5 was married Davinder Kumar 2014.05.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5389-2011 2 with Sham Singh son of Rajinder Kaur, respondent No.2 on 14.12.2006. There arose marital differences between Tejinder Kaur and Sham Singh as Tejinder Kaur was being harassed and tortured at the hands of her husband and his family members and eventually she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Due to this, a number of cases / litigation cropped up between the two families, both civil and criminal. The dispute between Tejinder Kaur and Sham Singh was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in CRM-M-5767-2011. The entire dispute between the parties was settled with the intervention of Mediator vide agreement / compromise Annexure P4 dated 21.03.2011. It is argued with vehemence that in pursuance of the said compromise which has been signed by Tejinder Kaur, her father Suba Singh on behalf of first party and Sham Singh, his father Surinder Singh for second party, Tejinder Kaur and her family members have withdrawn all the cases civil and criminal filed by them. It is further argued that Tejinder Kaur respondent No.2, mother of Sham Singh lodged the instant FIR but she has failed to withdraw the case or appear in this Court to give her consent for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom, though, in the compromise, there is a specific reference to the said FIR at Sr. No.(ii) of para 2 of the compromise. According to learned counsel, the entire settlement between the parties may fizzle out in case respondent No.2 is allowed to continue with the criminal proceedings lodged vide FIR in question when otherwise, continuation of the proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the present case is nothing but abuse and misuse of process of law. In addition, counsel has submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid compromise, Tejinder Kaur and Sham Davinder Kumar 2014.05.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5389-2011 3 Singh filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent and their marriage stands dissolved by a decree of divorce passed in those proceedings. The last submission made by counsel is that as Tejinder Kaur and her family members have performed their part of the agreement / compromise, respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to back out of the said settlement or permitted to carry on with the proceedings, off shoot of marital discord between Tejinder Kaur and Sham Singh. In support of her contention, she has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 949, Respondent No.2 was being represented by a counsel but later no one put in appearance on her behalf since 11.04.2013. Respondent No.2 did not file any reply to counter averments set up in the petition. Counsel for the respondent State of Punjab has not made any submissions to controvert the plea of the petitioners that a compromise was effected between the parties as per agreement / compromise dated 21.03.2011 Annexure P4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The agreement / compromise Annexure P4 makes it evident that the parties were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in CRM-M-5767-2011. The mediation proceedings were succesful as the parties agreed to bury their hatchet, forget their past with an intent to start the life afresh. The compromise Annexure P4 makes a detailed reference to various cases pending inter se the warring couple Tejinder Kaur and Sham Singh as well as their respective families. The agreement has Davinder Kumar 2014.05.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5389-2011 4 been signed by the fathers of both Tejinder Kaur and Sham Singh as well as their respective counsels. There is no rebuttal to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners and Tejinder Kaur have already withdrawn all the cases lodged at their behest. Not only this, one of the petitioners namely Amir Singh filed his affidavit and a relevant extract therefrom reads as follows:-

“4. That the petitioner side has withdrawn all the cases as per settlement which are as under:- 1. Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled Sham Singh Vs. Tejinder Singh filed by the 2nd Party which is pending in the Court of Sh.Bhalwant Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana.

2. Petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, filed by the 1st party pending in the Court of Ms. Triptjoth Kaur, JMIC, Jalandhar.

3. Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the 1st Party which is pending in the Court of Sh.Ajit Pal Singh, JMIC, Jalandhar.

4. Complaint under Section 406/498-A IPC filed by 1st party titled Tejinder Kaur Vs. Sham singh & Ors. pending in the Court of Ms.Triptjoth Kaur, JMIC, Jalandhar.

5. FIR No.251 dt. 16.12.2008 under Section 406, 498-A IPC P.S. Division No.8 Jalandhar, filed by the 1st party.

6. FIR No.152 dated 08.06.2008 under Sections 323/324 IPC lodged at Div.No.4 lodged by Amir Singh, brother of 1st party against the 2nd party.

7. FIR No.55 dt.22.11.2010 under Section 452, 379, 148 & 149 IPC with P.S.Motinagar, Davinder Kumar Ludhiana lodged by the 2nd party against the 2014.05.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5389-2011 5 family members of the 1st party. and this case was to be withdrawn by other side is not coming for make a statement.”

. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case that a compromise was effected between Tejinder Kaur and Suba Singh duly endorsed by their respective fathers and counsels and the fact that Tejinder Kaur and her family members have already withdrawn all the cases filed by them against respondent No.2 and her family members, it would result in miscarriage of justice in case respondent No.2 is allowed to continue the criminal proceedings lodged vide FIR No.55 dated 22.11.2010. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings launched by respondent No.2 vide aforesaid FIR amounts to abuse and misuse of process of law and cannot be allowed to continue. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed, FIR No.55 dated 22.11.2010 registered in Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana for offence punishable under Sections 452, 379, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed. (REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE May 09, 2014. Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.05.17 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //