Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Paresh Marwah vs The State Of Haryana on 27 September, 2019
Bench: Indira Banerjee, M.R. Shah
1
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) .......Diary No(s).29636/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-01-2019
in CRMM No.50179/2018 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
PARESH MARWAH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP)
Date : 27-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Lekh Raj Rehalia,Adv.
Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur,Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This Special Leave Petition is purportedly directed against the final order dated 15.1.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-50179 of 2018.
The application, being CRM-M-50179 of 2018, was filed Signature Not Verifiedunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an FIR No.823 dated 24.8.2018 filed against the Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2019.10.01 17:05:50 IST Reason: petitioner under Sections 312, 323, 34, 365, 377, 379-A, 406, 420, 498-A, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered at Model Town Police Station at 2 Panipat (Haryana). It appears that a submission was made in the High Court that the dispute between the parties had been resolved and a compromise dated 12.9.2018 had also been arrived at. By an order dated 15.11.2018, the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court to get their statement recorded with regard to genuineness of the compromise. A report was submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the parties had voluntarily compromised the matter without any pressure or coercion.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the application of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the FIR No.823 dated 24.8.2018 referred to above, was set aside.
The petitioner's own application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. having been allowed, the petitioner cannot possibly have any grievance. On a perusal of the pleadings it appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent-wife to agree to divorce by mutual consent in terms of the compromise.
Firstly, it is well settled that a spouse cannot be compelled to grant divorce by mutual consent and consent given can even be withdrawn at any subsequent stage. In any case, this Court is not an Executing Court for enforcement of orders passed by the High Court/Lower Courts. It is also not for this Court to enforce compromise agreements arrived at in the High Court or any other Court. The special leave petition is thoroughly misconceived and the same is dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
(Beena Jolly) (Sarita Purohit)
Branch Officer AR-cum-PS