Crl. Misc. No. M- 3098 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 3098 of 2009 Date of decision: March 2, 2009 Jasbir Singh and others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of case FIR No.150 dated 27.9.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station City Ferozepur for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A Indian Penal Code (“IPC” - for short). The FIR (Annexure P1) in the case has been lodged by Navdeep Kaur (respondent No.2) against her husband Jasbir Singh (petitioner No.1), Karnail Singh – father-in-law (petitioner No.2) and her Crl. Misc. No. M- 3098 of 2009 2 mother-in-law Paramjit Kaur (petitioner No.3) as also Devinder Singh, brother-in-law (non-petitioner). It is alleged by the complainant that she was married to Jasbir Singh (petitioner No.1) and her father had entrusted 12 tollas of gold ornaments to the petitioners. Besides, he had given 8 tollas of gold to other family members which included one kara, one ring to Jasbir Singh (petitioner No.1), one pair of ear rings to mother-in-law (petitioner No.3) and one ring to father-in-law (petitioner No.2) and brother-in-law (devar) as also brother-in-law (jija), besides, other household articles were also given. On account of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, the complainant/respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR (Annexure P1). In Crl. Misc. No. M-26778 of 2008 filed by Jasbir Singh, a compromise was entered into on 18.12.2008. It was agreed between the parties that the disputes had finally been settled and that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs on 7.1.2009 to Navdeep Kaur (respondent No.2) by way of a bank draft. Another sum of Rs.2 lacs would be given at the time of quashing of the FIR (Annexure P1) and resultant proceedings. A petition in this regard was to be filed along with an affidavit of the complainant in January itself. On the date when the petition was to be finally heard, a sum of Rs.2 lacs was agreed to be given to the complainant Navdeep Kaur (respondent No.2). It was further agreed that a sum of Rs.2 lacs would be paid at the time of grant of divorce by mutual consent. Petitioner No.1 had already filed a petition for divorce and an appropriate application was agreed to be filed for converting the said petition into a petition for seeking divorce by mutual consent. The present petition is being finally heard today. The same has been filed seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P1) and is supported by an affidavit dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P4) of the complainant/respondent No.2 Crl. Misc. No. M- 3098 of 2009 3 Navdeep Kaur. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 accepts that the affidavit (Annexure P4) has been filed by respondent No.2. It is deposed in the affidavit by Navdeep Kaur (respondent No.2) that she has no objection if the FIR (Annexure P1) is quashed in the light of order dated 18.12.2008 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered a draft dated 27.2.2009 for an amount of Rs.2 lacs drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Ferozepur payable to Navdeep Kaur (respondent No.2). The draft dated 27.2.2009 has been given to respondent No.2 who is present in Court and is identified by her counsel. She has accepted the same. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted on instructions that in view of the draft having been given to respondent No.2, she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR (Annexure P1). It may be noticed that that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been settled and the parties have decided to part their ways. A petition seeking divorce by mutual consent has also been filed and is pending in the District Court at Ferozepur. In terms of order dated 18.12.2008, a further sum of Rs.2 lacs has been agreed to be given to respondent No.2 on the day when decree granting divorce is passed by the learned District Judge. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR (Annexure P1), if the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Crl. Misc. No. M- 3098 of 2009 4 The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (Supra) has held that in respect of matrimonial disputes, there should be an effort to encourage genuine settlements. Besides, it was held that quashing of criminal proceedings or FIR in the cases of matrimonial dispute is permissible and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. Thus the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in the case of a matrimonial dispute having been compounded. Keeping in view the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been settled and a draft of sum of Rs.2 lacs has been given to respondent No.2, no purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR (Annexure P1). Therefore, it would be just and expedient to quash the same as also its consequential proceedings. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. In terms of the order dated 18.12.2008, the complainant would have the right to get the possession of articles from the Police after the quashing of the FIR. The FIR having been quashed, the complainant can take her dowry articles from the possession of the Police. Whatever other articles are available may also be given back. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 2, 2009 amit