Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jony And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 3 November, 2017
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
CRM-M-30127-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30127-2017
Date of decision: 03.11.2017
Jony and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Ms. Karmanjot Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sharad Choudhary, 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. 189 dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 354-B (deleted later on), 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal 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/complainant was solemnized on 21.02.2015 with petitioner No. 1-Jony 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-Smriti Kakkar. 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 - 07-11-2017 00:51:44 ::: CRM-M-30127-2017 -2- compromise.
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 at Karnal, 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 Deputy Advocate General, Haryana on instructions from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for respondent No. 2- complainant admit 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 Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Cr.) 543, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 189 dated 04.08.2015 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2017 00:51:45 ::: CRM-M-30127-2017 -3- (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 354-B (deleted later on), 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua the petitioners.
The petition stands disposed of.
03.11.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2017 00:51:45 :::