Vinod Kumar and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 186, dated 20.7.2012, under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 13.8.2013, petitioner No. 1, Vinod Kumar (husband) and respondent No. 2, Anju Bala (wife) as well as the representative of the State of Punjab, were directed to appear before the Director, Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Director, Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court was also directed to send a report in that regard along with copies of the statements on or before the date fixed by this Court.

In compliance of the above order, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 did appear before the Director, Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The Director, Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court has sent the copies of their statements along with his report, dated 13.8.2013, with regard to the compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Due to the intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has sorted out her all disputes with the petitioners and entered into a compromise which is available in the shape of the affidavit (Annexure P-2). The terms and conditions of the compromise have been materialized. He further submits that Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen lacs only) were paid by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement amount. He further contends that vide order dated 7.5.2013, the Court of competent jurisdiction has already passed a decree of divorce in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dissolving the marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel further submits that the pendency of the FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law, as the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, .

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from HC Ram Lubhaya of Police Station, Civil Lines, Batala, very fairly concedes that the private parties have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise. He also concedes that HC Patras Masih was present before the Director, Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court when petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 suffered their respective statements with regard to the compromise. He also contends that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed in view of the compromise effected between the private parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. Petitioner No. 1, Vinod Kumar, who is the husband, while petitioner No. 2, Surinder Kaur, is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, Anju Bala. On 13.8.2013, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 appeared before the Director, Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and suffered their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The report has also been received from the Director wherein it has been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute by way of amicable settlement. The document (Annexure P-2) also reveals that the parties have effected a compromise. As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, divorce has already been granted to petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 by the Court of competent jurisdiction at Batala. As a consequence of the compromise, a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant, respondent No. 2, by petitioner No. 1. In view of these circumstances, the pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the factum of the compromise effected between the private parties and the ratio of the judgments delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No. 186, dated 20.7.2012, under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.