Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haneel Jaypal Anand And Ors vs State Of U T Chandigarh And Anr on 16 August, 2017
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
CRM-M-17306-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17306-2017
Date of Decision: 16.08.2017
Haneel Jaypal Anand & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh & another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Vivek Sharma Bhanot, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Ashima Mor, APP for U.T., Chandigarh.
Mr. Goldy Jakhar, 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. 62 dated 03.08.2016, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC, at Women Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 17.09.2016 (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.
The marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 29.05.2009 with petitioner No. 1. However, due to temperamental differences with the husband and his family members, matrimonial dispute arose and the aforesaid FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2-Meenu Mehta. Now with the intervention of respectable persons, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2017 14:32:11 ::: CRM-M-17306-2017 -2- between the parties and they have entered into a compromise. In fact, a decree of divorce, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has also been obtained.
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 JMIC, Chandigarh, 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.
Learned Assistant P.P., Chandigarh, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, and counsel for respondent No. 2 admit to the factum of compromise and submits 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 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2017 14:32:12 ::: CRM-M-17306-2017 -3- Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 62 dated 03.08.2016, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC, at Women Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
August 16, 2017 JUDGE
Ansari
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 19-08-2017 14:32:12 :::