DHANWANT SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, Dhanwant Singh, son of Suraj Pal Singh, resident of House No. 405, Phase 6, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), for quashing of FIR No. 344, dated 25.10.2011, under Section 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-4).

(2.) Mr. S.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, it is a matrimonial dispute. The petitioner, Dhanwant Singh, is the ex-father in-law of respondent No. 2, Gian Chand. Due to bickering between the husband (Gian Chand) and the wife (Dilpreet Kaur, daughter of the petitioner) multifarious litigation had arisen and in the same sequence the impugned FIR was registered at the behest of respondent No. 2, Gian Chand, i.e. ex-son in-law of the petitioner, Dhanwant Singh. He further submits that during pendency of the present litigation better sense prevailed and the husband and the wife, i.e. Gian Chand and Dilpreet Kaur have sorted out all the disputes and effected a compromise and as a result thereof vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2014, a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. He further submits that FIR No. 163, dated 17.5.2004, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, which was registered at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh, on the basis the complaint made by Dilpreet Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, has already been quashed by this Court vide order of even date passed in CRM-M-9589-2014. He further submits that the parties have also decided to get the present criminal litigation terminated on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-4). He further submits that the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, is compoundable one as per the provisions contained under Section 320, Cr.P.C. It has also been contended that the allegations levelled by respondent No. 2, Gian Chand, are personal in nature and pendency of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioner are bleak.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Parminder Singh of Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh, submits that the present criminal litigation is an off-shoot of the matrimonial dispute amongst Gian Chand (respondent No. 2/husband) and Dilpreet Kaur (daughter of the petitioner) and now they have sorted out all their disputes and effected a compromise.