Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 August, 2011
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
Crl. Misc. No. M-18070 of 2010 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-18070 of 2010 (O & M)
DATE OF DECISION: August 25, 2011
Ravinder Kumar and another .........PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ........ RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate,
for respondent no. 2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No. 803 dated 05.12.2009 under Sections 406/498- A/494/323/506/34 IPC, P.S. Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal, placed on record as Annexure P-1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while this petition was pending adjudication, a healthy development has taken place in so much as the disputes between respondent no. 2-Nikita and her husband-Atul Kumar have been settled by way of compromise. Nikita appeared before the Trial Court at Karnal on 04.03.2011 and gave a statement to the effect that she has settled the disputes in view of compromise and would approach this Court for quashing of the FIR. The statement has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
Respondent no. 2-Nikita is present in Court, as identified by her Crl. Misc. No. M-18070 of 2010 (O & M) 2 counsel, Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, and states that indeed there were matrimonial disputes between her and Atul Kumar. The disputes have been settled. The two are now divorced. Rather, Nikita is remarried and living in her matrimonial home. Respondent no. 2 further states that all her rights arising out of matrimony have been settled by way of payment/return of dowry articles.
It has been prayed that continuance of these proceedings shall disrupt the matrimonial life of respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the petition be allowed and proceedings be quashed.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case in context of the stand taken by respondent no. 2 in conjunction with her statement on oath in Court Annexure P-4, as referred to above.
Continuance of proceedings shall not be conducive to peace and harmony and would destroy the future life of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is the alleged victim, who does not want to prosecute the petitioners. Continuance of proceedings, under the circumstances, shall be an exercise in futility.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that because the parties have entered into a compromise, the petition for quashing of FIR is not opposed.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed.
FIR No. 803 dated 05.12.2009 under Sections 406/498- A/494/323/506/34 IPC, P.S. Karnal, Civil Lines, District Karnal and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.
25.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA)
shivani JUDGE
Crl. Misc. No. M-18070 of 2010 (O & M) 3