LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-568

GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Decided On September 26, 2014
GURPREET SINGH Appellant
V/S
State of Punjab and Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, son of Malkiat Singh, resident of House No. 1101, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, for quashing of FIR No. 6, dated 18.1.2014, under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jalandhar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, who is husband of complainant/respondent No. 2, Bharti, submits that due to temperamental differences, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 could not pull on well and as a consequence thereof the impugned FIR was lodged by complainant/respondent No. 2. He further submits that during pendency of the investigation, better sense prevailed and both the private factions to the lis sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise (Annexure P-2). In the interregnum, they also filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent and the same was decreed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.2014. He further contends that all the terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P-2) have been materialized. The pendency of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioner are bleak in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Avtar Singh of Police Station, Women Cell, Jalandhar, very fairly concedes that the matrimonial dispute leading to the registration of the impugned FIR, has been sorted out between the husband and the wife and they have effected a compromise (Annexure P-2). He further submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the concequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed