BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALWINDER Singh, Parvinder Kaur, Harjit Singh, Amarjit Singh and Tejinder Kaur, the petitioners-accused in FIR No. 129 dated 4.5.2002 under sections 406, 498A IPC, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana are seeking quashing of FIR.

(2.) I need not delve into details on factual side as the parties have since compromised the matter. The petitioners are relying upon compromise deed dated 22.10.2002 Annexure P/5 which is not disputed by Kiranjit Kaur alias Neetu respondent No. 2-the complainant. Another fact which has been brought to my notice is that the marriage between Harjit Singh petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Respondent No. 2, in her reply relies upon Annexure P/1 and P/2, copy of judgment and decree whereby the mutual divorce has been granted. Annexures P/3 and P/4, are the statements of Harjit Singh and Kiranjit Kaur.

(3.) OUT of this wedlock, there is a female child also who is presently of the age of three years and is with the mother. Since there was no reference to the alimony to the said minor child in the compromise, both sides had made a statement before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana to the effect that minor daughter Harsimranjit Kaur would remain in the custody of respondent No. 2- mother and that she shall have all the rights to claim maintenance for the minor child from her father in accordance with law. There is a reference to this effect in the judgment Annexure P/1 also.