Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sajal Jain vs The State Of Haryana on 16 October, 2023
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 9248-9249/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2023
in CRMM No. 1104/2023 28-03-2023 in CRM No. 13581/2023 passed by
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
SAJAL JAIN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 148034/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 148020/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 16-10-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan,Adv.
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Birender Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioner is aggrieved by the issue and pendency of “lookout circular” issued on 20.01.2018. He was accused along with his parents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 IPC etc., P.S. Section 31, Faridabad, Haryana. The record shows that the parties had in the meanwhile, during the pendency of the notice entered into a mutually agreeable settlement on Signature Not Verified 16.07.2018 based upon which a decree of divorce was in fact issued Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.10.17 16:38:45 IST Reason: by the Court of competent jurisdiction in California, U.S.A. on SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9248-9249/2023 1 of 2 17.08.2018. In furtherance of that the complainant/wife also appears to have recorded her satisfaction by way of an acknowledgment document dated 29.09.2018.
The police authorities filed a final report on 28.06.2019. The petitioner being aggrieved moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court took note of the fact that the final report was on the record and yet taking into consideration the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 29.10.2022 which had all but formally closed the matter, rejected the request for quashing of the proceedings emanating from the FIR as well as the “lookout circular”.
The learned counsel for the State did not dispute the basic facts but he pointed to the order dated 29.10.2022 and stated that the “lookout circular” was issued pursuant to the request made in 2018.
Having considered the entire record this Court is satisfied that once the final report was filed, which took note of the settlement arrived at by the parties as well as the divorce decree based upon the mutual agreement, nothing further survived. In the circumstances, FIR No. 06 dated 03.01.2018, P.S. Sector 31, Faridabad, Haryana and all consequential proceedings animating from it as well as lookout circular No.204-10 dated 20.01.2018 are hereby quashed.
The petitions are allowed.
All pending applications are disposed of.
(NEETA SAPRA) (BEENA JOLLY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9248-9249/2023 2 of 2