Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 2 April, 2018
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
CRM-M-7515-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7515-2018
Date of decision: 02.04.2018
Manoj Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 473 dated 30.08.2015, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Line, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.
The marriage of respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 24.03.2007 with petitioner No. 1 herein as per Hindu rites and rituals. However, due to temperamental differences between the husband and wife, matrimonial dispute arose and the aforesaid FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 Aruna. However, now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2018 09:51:36 ::: CRM-M-7515-2018 -2- compromise wherein the parties have decided to part ways.
Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report has been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Rohtak, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same appears to be genuine one. It is also reported that no PO proceeding is pending against either of the parties.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 admit to the factum of compromise and submit that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, they would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and gone through the record.
In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.
Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, (2014) 6 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2018 09:51:38 ::: CRM-M-7515-2018 -3- SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 473 dated 30.08.2015, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Line, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the petitioners herein.
The petition stands disposed of.
02.04.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 15-04-2018 09:51:38 :::