Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 228]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharambir Singh @ Dharam Singh And ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 November, 2013

Author: Rekha Mittal

Bench: Rekha Mittal

           CRM-M No.21495 of 2013                                                           1

             IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

                                                       CRM-M No.21495 of 2013
                                                       Date of decision : 13.11.2013

           Dharambir Singh @ Dharam Singh and others

                                                                          ... Petitioners

                                     Versus

           State of Haryana and others

                                                                          ... Respondents

           CORAM:              HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

           Present:            Mr.Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Advocate
                               for Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.

                               Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana.

                               Mr.Ravi Gakhar, Advocate
                               for respondent No.2.

           REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.101 dated 01.10.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Chacchorli, District Yamunanagar on the basis of compromise dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure P2) effected between the parties.

The parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/ trial Court on 27.09.2013 to get their statements recorded with regard to genuineness of compromise.

A report has been submitted by the trial Court / Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, wherein it has been reported that the statements of the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 have been recorded and the statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they Davinder Kumar 2013.11.18 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21495 of 2013 2 have voluntarily entered into a compromise with an intention to live in peace and harmony.

Counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 has conceded to the fact that parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise and the complainant-respondent No.2 has got no objection if the aforesaid FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

Counsel for the State has not disputed correctness of assertions of the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 that the matter has been settled by way of compromise between the parties.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. There is nothing on record to doubt correctness of the compromise effected between the parties, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute with an intention to live in peace and harmony. The present case falls in the category of cases, which can be allowed to be settled by way of compromise, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and FIR No.101 dated 01.10.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Chacchorli, District Yamunanagar and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE November 13, 2013.

Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2013.11.18 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document