Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Katyal & Others vs State Of Haryana & Anr. on 30 January, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Misc. No.30795 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.30795 of 2012
Date of Decision: 30th January, 2013
Amit Katyal & Others Versus State of Haryana & Anr.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Ms.Garima Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.316 dated 22.10.2009, under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Vide order dated 01.10.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 08.10.2012 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, for making their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, was also directed to send a status report in that regard on or before the date fixed by this Court.
In compliance thereof, respondent No.2/complainant- Sudha Katyal and petitioner No.1, namely, Amit Katyal along with their relatives did appear before the learned court below and got Criminal Misc. No.30795 of 2012 2 recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The status report to that effect has also been received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. Complainant-respondent No.2-Sudha Katyal stated that her marriage was solemnized with Amit Katyal (petitioner No.1) on 24.11.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of the said wedlock, a female child, namely, Sayna, was born. After the marriage, the husband and the wife could not pull on well on account of incompatible behaviour and ultimately, the Panchayat got effected the compromise between them vide Annexure C-1 on 02.07.2012. In compliance of the said compromise deed, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was presented for grant of a decree of divorce. As per compromise, ` 6,00,000/- were paid by Amit Katyal (Petitioner No.1) to Sudha Katyal (respondent No.2-complainant) to maintain the minor child, namely, Sayna. The minor child, namely, Sayna, would remain with Sudha Katyal (complainant). She further stated that she had no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. She further submits that due to the intervention of the respectable and the elderly people of the society, the compromise has been effected between the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant. She also submits that in view of the compromise, the petitioners have proposed not to initiate any further proceedings against the complainant/respondent No.2. She also submits that the statement of the husband and the wife along with their relatives have already Criminal Misc. No.30795 of 2012 3 been recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala with regard to the compromise.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ram Kumar, Police Station, City, Ambala, admits the factum of compromise effected between the parties. After going through the statements and the status report, sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, he submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, submits that a compromise has been effected between respondent No.2-complainant and the petitioners. He further submits that respondent No.2-complainant did appear before the court below and got recorded her statement with regard to the compromise. He further submits that respondent No.2-complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Heard.
This criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. The private parties have amicably settled their scores and effected a compromise. The complainant-Sudha Katyal and her husband-Amit Katyal (petitioner No.1) have decided to part company from each other. A divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed before the court. The report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, reveals that both the parties voluntarily made the statements with regard to the compromise. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 as Criminal Misc. No.30795 of 2012 4 well as learned counsel for the State have also admitted the factum of compromise and have no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. The matter has amicably been settled and the husband and the wife have decided to part their company from each other. Taking into consideration the above facts, the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak, therefore, pendency of FIR and the continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.
In view of the factum of compromise and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.316 dated 22.10.2009, under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
January 30, 2013 JUDGE
seema