FIR lodged, compromised between the parties undertaking given to withdraw the proceedings but failure to honour the terms of compromise-complaint quashed

Crl. Misc. No. M-35266 of 2009 (O&M) -1 –
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-35266 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.7.2013.
Navjot Kaur Saini ……..Petitioner
Vs.
Swinder Kaur ……Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarabjit Singh Khaira, Advocate
for the respondent.
…..
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for
quashing of the complaint No. 521 dated 17.10.2006 titled as
‘Swinder Kaur Vs. Navjot Kaur Saini and others’ under Section
500 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) (Annexure P-10) and
all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the
summoning order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-11).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
petitioner got married to Harinder Singh son of the respondent.
A matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioner and her
husband. However, the said matrimonial dispute was amicably
settled between the parties and a decree of divorce on the basis
of mutual consent was passed in favour of the petitioner and her
husband. FIR lodged on the basis of the complaint filed by the
petitioner, was quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.5.2007Crl. Misc. No. M-35266 of 2009 (O&M) -2 –
Annexure P-5. Although the parties had amicably settled their
dispute but the respondent had failed to withdraw the complaint
in question against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that
respondent was not a party to the compromise. In fact, the
petitioner had filed the present petition without surrendering
before the Trial Court.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am
of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
In the present case, admittedly, petitioner got married
to Harinder Singh son of the respondent. A matrimonial dispute
arose between the parties. Petitioner lodged FIR No. 90 dated
8.10.2005 under Section 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station
Division No. 2, Jalandhar against her husband, respondent and
others. The said FIR was quashed by this Court vide order dated
14.5.2007 (Annexure P-5). A perusal of the said order reveals
that the parties had amicably settled their matrimonial dispute
and the petitioner along with her husband had filed a petition
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking
dissolution of their marriage on the basis of mutual consent.
Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance was got dismissed as withdrawn by her on
17.8.2006. Petition filed by Harinder Singh, husband of the
petitioner, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was
got dismissed as withdrawn on 26.8.2006. In her reply, petitioner
stated that she had no objection if the FIR in question was
quashed against the accused in view of the compromise effectedCrl. Misc. No. M-35266 of 2009 (O&M) -3 –
between the parties. Thus, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 645-M of
2006 filed by the respondent and her husband seeking quashing
of the FIR was allowed. In this situation, the argument raised by
the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent was not
a party to the compromise, is without any basis. Since the FIR
got registered by the petitioner was quashed on the basis of
compromise effected the parties, respondent should have
withdrawn the complaint in question in view of the compromise
effected between the parties. However, it appears that the
respondent has failed to honour the terms of the compromise.
Although, she has got the FIR registered against her quashed on
the basis of compromise but wants to pursue the complaint
lodged by her against her daughter-in-law. In these
circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint
No. 521 dated 17.10.2006 titled as ‘Swinder Kaur Vs. Navjot
Kaur Saini and others’ under Section 500 IPC (Annexure P-10)
and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom
including the summoning order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-
11), are quashed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE
July 10, 2013

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s