PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARAMJIT Singh-petitioner No. 1, his parents, brother and sister have filed the present petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 476 dated 22.11.1994 under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC registered against them in Police Station Butana, District Karnal. According to Paramjit Singh, the marriage between him and Madhu Bala-respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 6.12.1992 but as they could not adjust with one another, on her complaint F.I.R. No. 476 was registered. After the registration of the F.I.R., Paramjit Singh had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 4.4.1997. Thereafter, on 6.10.1997, the parties had entered into a compromise, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P-3, according to which they had sorted out all the difference that had arisen between them. A report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. having been filed against the petitioners, they had been appearing on each and every date fixed before the trial Court and as on account of the compromise, no one was interested in prosecuting the case, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) ON behalf of respondent No. 1, reply had been filed in which though the factum of the parties having compromised the matter is admitted, it was sought to be urged that the case is not one in which the proceedings initiated against the petitioners should be quashed.

(3.) THE present case against the petitioners arose out of a dispute which arose between Paramjit Singh and Madhu Bala who after their marriage were not able to live in harmony with one another. It is not disputed before me that the articles of dowry have since been returned and the parties have compromised all disputes that existed between them thorough an agreement executed on 6.7.1997. After the compromise the respondents do not seem to be interested in prosecuting the case and that is why no progress is being made therein. It is probably on account of this that the petitioners have sought the intervention of this Court and since the factum of the compromise is not disputed by the State and admitted in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, who have also indicated therein that they have no objection if the petition is allowed, there is no possibility of any witness coming to depose in favour of the stand put forth in the F.I.R. and, therefore, the continuance of the proceedings any further cannot be justified.