Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikrant Goel vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 May, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-6528 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-6528 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.05.2012
Vikrant Goel ......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana
Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 2
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No. 256 dated 01.05.2010 under Sections 354/323/452/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Hansi pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Hansi, is sought on the basis of compromise dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure P-2).
F.I.R was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 who is sister in law of the accused. At about 6.15 P.M in the evening petitioner came at the house of respondent No. 2 and has started beating respondent No. 2 and stated that he will teach the lesson for lodging a F.I.R against him. Crl. Misc. No. M-6528 of 2012 (O&M) -2- He came forward with bad intention towards respondent No. 2 and tried to rape her. However, husband of respondent No. 2 came in the home. The accused also gave beatings to his husband. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner.
However, the matter has now been duly compromised between the parties, vide compromise deed dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure P-2).
In compliance of order dated 05.03.2012, the parties got recorded their statements. Report of Dub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi has been received in this regard. As per report, complainant and accused had come present in the Court on 18.04.2012 and have made their separate statements without any pressure that they have arrived at a compromise with the help of a brotherhood Panachayat and do not want to proceed further with the present case. They were duly identified by the respective counsels. In view of the statement of the parties, the court is satisfied that the compromise is valid and genuine.
Consequently, in view of the status report and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 910, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Accordingly, FIR No. 256 dated 01.05.2010 under Sections 354/323/452/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Hansi pending in Crl. Misc. No. M-6528 of 2012 (O&M) -3- the Court of learned SDJM, Hansi is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
24.05.2012 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE