Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Rama Rani vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 November, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Misc. No.M-4235 of 2012 ..1..
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-4235 of 2012
Date of Decision: 23rd November, 2012
Smt.Rama Rani
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.79 dated 13.03.2007, under Section 406, IPC registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Amritsar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submits that during the pendency of the case before the learned trial court, a better sense has prevailed and respondent No.2- complainant-Ruchi and petitioner-Smt.Rama Rani have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise. He further contends that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Devinder Kumar, Police Station, Sadar, Amritsar, has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed in view of the Criminal Misc. No.M-4235 of 2012 ..2..
statement suffered by the parties in the Court today.
Respondent No.2/complainant-Ruchi has suffered statement that she has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Similar statement has been suffered by the petitioner.
Heard.
The statements of the petitioner and respondent No.2/ complainant have been recorded separately in the presence of their respective counsel. Both of them have deposed about the compromise (Annexure P-4) effected between them. Respondent No.2/complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC. The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute. The husband of respondent No.2/ complainant and the son of the petitioner, namely, Vishal Bhandari has since died. Pendency of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom would be a sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioner are bleak.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case; the fact 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.79 dated 13.03.2007, under Section 406, IPC registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Amritsar, and all Criminal Misc. No.M-4235 of 2012 ..3..
the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
23rd November, 2012 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge