Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Malik vs State Of Haryana & Anr. on 1 February, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Misc.No.M-34593 of 2012 .1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-34593 of 2012
Date of Decision: 01st February, 2013
Rajesh Malik Versus State of Haryana & Anr.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Bijinder Dhankar, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C is for quashing of FIR No.19 dated 17.06.2009, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Sonepat, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties.
Vide order dated 05.11.2012, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 15.11.2012 before the learned trial court for making their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The learned trial court was also directed to submit its detailed report in that regard on or before the date fixed by this Court.
Criminal Misc.No.M-34593 of 2012 .2.
In compliance thereof, petitioner-Rajesh Malik as well as respondent No.2-complainant-Sonu @ Gayatri did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. In the last lines of the statement of respondent No.2-complainant, she stated that till the terms of compromise qua Ragvi (minor daughter of the parties) would not be fulfilled, she would not accord her consent for quashing of FIR No.19 dated 17.06.2009.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant also submits that though the compromise has been effected between the parties but it is a partial in nature. He further submits that few terms and conditions of the compromise are yet to be executed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ramesh Kumar, Police Station, Women Cell, Sonepat, submits that the parties did appear before the learned court below and suffered their respective statements. He also submits that since respondent No.2/complainant is not completely agreeable for quashing of the impugned FIR on the basis of the compromise, therefore, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner be rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of divorce proceedings before the learned District Judge, the private parties had filed a compromise, therefore, in spite of the fact of the objection raised by respondent No.2/complainant, the present petition be accepted and the Criminal Misc.No.M-34593 of 2012 .3.
impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed by presuming that there had been a compromise between the parties. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mohd.Shamim & Ors. vs. Smt.Nahid Begum & Anr., 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 697, and the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 823.
Heard.
The petition came up for hearing before this Court on 05.11.2012 and while relying upon the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the private parties were directed to appear before the learned trial court for recording their respective statements with regard to the compromise. In compliance thereof, respondent No.2-complainant as well as the petitioner did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective statements. Respondent No.2- complainant was very categoric in her deposition that she would not accord consent until the issue with regard to the maintenance of her minor daughter Ragvi was sorted out. It clearly spells out that the compromise, alleged to have been effected between the parties, was partial in nature. Until and unless the complainant resolves her all the disputes with the petitioner, the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of mutual compromise, cannot be accepted. There is no dispute with regard to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the Criminal Misc.No.M-34593 of 2012 .4.
petitioner. However, the facts and circumstances of those cases are absolutely different.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition for quashing of FIR No.19 dated 17.06.2009, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Sonepat, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, cannot be accepted.
Dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
February 01, 2013 JUDGE
seema