Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash Verma And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 July, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM M-24644 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-24644 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 04, 2012.
Om Parkash Verma and another
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another.
..........RESPONDENT(s).
(2)
Crl. Misc. No. M-9679 of 2011 (O&M)
Nitin Parkash
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another.
..........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate
for petitioners Om Parkash Verma and Meena Verma.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate
for petitioner Nitin Parkash.
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana,
counsel for respondent-State.
Respondent No.2 in person with
Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
*******
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
CRM M-24644 of 2010 -2- Both the afore-mentioned petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.676 dated 16.11.2009 under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, Annexure P-1, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that the present dispute is on account of matrimonial discord between the parties and the same has since been settled due to intervention of respectable persons and relatives from both the sides and petitioner Nitin Parkash and respondent No.2 Smt. Poonam have agreed to seek mutual divorce. It has been further contended that they filed petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for mutual divorce and the same has also been allowed. Hence, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that she has no objection if both the afore-mentioned petitions are accepted.
Respondent No.2 - complainant also appeared in person and stating that she is having no objection if the FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
In appropriate cases FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.
CRM M-24644 of 2010 -3-
Since the parties have amicably settled the matter and compromise has been effected between them due to intervention of the respectable persons and relatives from both the sides, both the afore- mentioned petitions are allowed and the impugned FIR No.676 dated 16.11.2009 under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, Annexure P-1, alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioners Om Parkash Verma, Meena Verma and Nitin Parkash is, hereby, quashed.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 04, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.